Publication
Toronto : Knopf Canada, 2014.
Call number
History / Armst
ISBN
0307946967 / 9780307946966
Original publication date
2014-10-28
Collections
Physical description
512 p.; 25 cm
Description
"From the renowned and best-selling author of A History of God, a sweeping exploration of religion's connection to violence. For the first time in American history, religious self-identification is on the decline. Some have cited a perception that began to grow after Sept 11: That faith in general is a source of aggression, intolerance and divisiveness--something bad for society. But how accurate is that view? And does it apply equally to all faiths? In these troubled times, we risk basing decisions of real and dangerous consequence on mistaken understandings of the faiths subscribed around us, in our immediate community as well as globally. And so, with her deep learning and sympathetic understanding, Karen Armstrong examines the impulse toward violence in each of the world's great religions.… (more)
Language
Similar in this library
The birth of Christianity : discovering what happened in the years immediately after the execution of Jesus by John Dominic Crossan
A History of religious ideas, volume 1 : from the stone age to the Eleusinian mysteries by Mircea Eliade
User reviews
LibraryThing member Jaylia3
Does religion cause war?
Like several Karen Armstrong books I’ve read, Fields of Blood is so rich with information and ideas that it has years worth of material to reflect on and discuss. Even reading slowly and carefully it felt like I was just skimming its surface, but that was still enough to
The central themes of the entire 400+ page book are well summarized in its nine page Afterword, but the particulars of history in the earlier sections are what makes this book so interesting. One of the main ideas Armstrong makes a case for, as best as I can do justice to it, is that religion isn’t the cause of violence, the same religious texts can inspire very different actions, and it’s societal stratification and expansion brought about by the development of agriculture and then industrialization that began the cycle of subjugation and violence as we understand it today. Among the book’s many other interesting points to ponder, whether or not you end up agreeing with Armstrong, are that most people don’t make the claim that WWI or WWII--two of history’s largest wars--were caused by religion, that before the French Revolution there was no separation of church or religion and state so separating out religion as the cause of war is problematic, and that belief systems, even secular belief systems, can play a role in stemming violence and preserving the best aspects of our humanity.
I read an advanced review copy of this book supplied by the publisher. The review opinions are mine.
Like several Karen Armstrong books I’ve read, Fields of Blood is so rich with information and ideas that it has years worth of material to reflect on and discuss. Even reading slowly and carefully it felt like I was just skimming its surface, but that was still enough to
Show More
make me question some of my thinking patterns. For years Armstrong has heard people from all walks of life confidently making the broad mostly unexamined pronouncement that religion has been the cause of all major wars in history--I have been guilty of similar shortcut thinking myself--so she wrote Fields of Blood to address that claim with a fascinating, wide-reaching, and detailed world history of culture, politics, violence, and religion from the prehistoric pre-agrarian era to the post-9/11 present day.The central themes of the entire 400+ page book are well summarized in its nine page Afterword, but the particulars of history in the earlier sections are what makes this book so interesting. One of the main ideas Armstrong makes a case for, as best as I can do justice to it, is that religion isn’t the cause of violence, the same religious texts can inspire very different actions, and it’s societal stratification and expansion brought about by the development of agriculture and then industrialization that began the cycle of subjugation and violence as we understand it today. Among the book’s many other interesting points to ponder, whether or not you end up agreeing with Armstrong, are that most people don’t make the claim that WWI or WWII--two of history’s largest wars--were caused by religion, that before the French Revolution there was no separation of church or religion and state so separating out religion as the cause of war is problematic, and that belief systems, even secular belief systems, can play a role in stemming violence and preserving the best aspects of our humanity.
I read an advanced review copy of this book supplied by the publisher. The review opinions are mine.
Show Less
LibraryThing member annbury
This book addresses an assumption widely held in the West today, that religion is the cause much if not most of the strife in the world , and has indeed been so throughout history. I have tended to share that view. A quick survey of history, from the Crusades through the Wars of Religion right up
The book proceeds forward through time from the Neolithic to today, and as it does one of Ms. Armstrong's key points emerges. It is only for the past two hundred years or so, and only in the West, that religion has been separated from the state, to become a private matter for the individual conscience. Through most of history, the state and religion of been interlinked, and religion has been essentially public, evinced in rituals that were at the heart of social relations. Protestantism introduced the idea of religion as a personal, non-mediated choice, and in time the Enlightenment enshrined tolerance and the separation of church and state. But this is very recent: through most of history, religion and politics and social relations and warfare have been inextricably linked. Ms. Armstrong also points out that secularization has not ended warfare -- far from it. The 20th century saw the most horrible and destructive wars in history without much religious involvement. Indeed, these wars were characterized by the replacement of religion by the quasi-religion of the nation state.
Her survey of religious texts shows clearly that no major faith is unequivocally violent, or non-violent. In parts of the New Testament, Jesus calls upon us to turn the other cheek. In others, he brings not peace but a sword. The Koran has sections that praise peace and tolerance, and others that call for war on unbelievers. Rather, religion becomes a motive for war when other forces are pushi in the same direction; when that happens, a justifying text is always available.
Finally, Ms. Armstrong's analysis argues convincingly that the linkage of violence and religion in recent years, particularly in the Middle East, reflects in large part wrenching social and political change. Moreover, with a very few exceptions, that change did not emerge from within countries or societies, it was imposed upon them by colonial powers. This has contributed to a perceived link between modernity and Western imperialism, which in turn contributed to a turn to what was presented as traditional faith as part of a rejection of the West and all its works. When combined with a powerful sense of grievance, this has led to frightening results.. She is not attempting to justify Islamic violence, but she does argue that it can be understood.
This book did not engross me quite so much as some of Ms. Armstrong's earlier works, particularly "The Case For God". Some of the earlier part of the history section drags a bit. Also, there are instances where I think religion was more of a motivating force than she assumes, particularly the European Wars of Religion.
Overall, however, "Fields of Blood" has many virtues. It is commendably readable given the weightiness of its topic. It is carefully researched and documented. And, most important, it is a convincing argument against an assumption that could become very dangerous. If we in the West decide that religion -- or one religion -- is the main reason for violence aimed against us, we could take action against people solely because of their religion.
Show More
to Islamic State, certainly seems to provide evidence. Ms. Armstrong, however, picks apart the apparent causality through a extensive survey of the history of warfare, in tandem with a review of what various holy texts have said about war. After reading her book, I was at least 75% convinced that I had been wrong: that religion like violence are parts of being human that often overlap, but that religion does not cause violence.The book proceeds forward through time from the Neolithic to today, and as it does one of Ms. Armstrong's key points emerges. It is only for the past two hundred years or so, and only in the West, that religion has been separated from the state, to become a private matter for the individual conscience. Through most of history, the state and religion of been interlinked, and religion has been essentially public, evinced in rituals that were at the heart of social relations. Protestantism introduced the idea of religion as a personal, non-mediated choice, and in time the Enlightenment enshrined tolerance and the separation of church and state. But this is very recent: through most of history, religion and politics and social relations and warfare have been inextricably linked. Ms. Armstrong also points out that secularization has not ended warfare -- far from it. The 20th century saw the most horrible and destructive wars in history without much religious involvement. Indeed, these wars were characterized by the replacement of religion by the quasi-religion of the nation state.
Her survey of religious texts shows clearly that no major faith is unequivocally violent, or non-violent. In parts of the New Testament, Jesus calls upon us to turn the other cheek. In others, he brings not peace but a sword. The Koran has sections that praise peace and tolerance, and others that call for war on unbelievers. Rather, religion becomes a motive for war when other forces are pushi in the same direction; when that happens, a justifying text is always available.
Finally, Ms. Armstrong's analysis argues convincingly that the linkage of violence and religion in recent years, particularly in the Middle East, reflects in large part wrenching social and political change. Moreover, with a very few exceptions, that change did not emerge from within countries or societies, it was imposed upon them by colonial powers. This has contributed to a perceived link between modernity and Western imperialism, which in turn contributed to a turn to what was presented as traditional faith as part of a rejection of the West and all its works. When combined with a powerful sense of grievance, this has led to frightening results.. She is not attempting to justify Islamic violence, but she does argue that it can be understood.
This book did not engross me quite so much as some of Ms. Armstrong's earlier works, particularly "The Case For God". Some of the earlier part of the history section drags a bit. Also, there are instances where I think religion was more of a motivating force than she assumes, particularly the European Wars of Religion.
Overall, however, "Fields of Blood" has many virtues. It is commendably readable given the weightiness of its topic. It is carefully researched and documented. And, most important, it is a convincing argument against an assumption that could become very dangerous. If we in the West decide that religion -- or one religion -- is the main reason for violence aimed against us, we could take action against people solely because of their religion.
Show Less
LibraryThing member auntmarge64
When I began reading this book I started asking people if they thought religion causes violence. Invariably I received some version of this response: "Duh!......" So it was intriguing to have Armstrong begin her book by declaring the problem not quite so simple and proceed to give a long,
The scholarship is far-reaching and not quickly digested, but it is fascinating. Folded into the narrative are numerous digressions which add to the conclusion that the book's question requires a much broader range of scholarship than might be obvious. And there are some very interesting facts and events to read about, among them:
The first Crusaders, "psychotic" as they massacred thousands of Muslims and Jews, then celebrating their actions in Christian ceremonies.
The siege of Béziers in 1209 by the abbot of Citeaux in an effort to wipe out the Cathari, a popular Christian sect dedicated to poverty, chastity and nonviolence. When asked by his troops how to tell the heretics from the orthodox he had them kill everyone, leaving it to God to "know his own".
John Locke's introduction into the Western philosophical canon of "the myth of religious violence", as he pushed to separate religion and politics.
The Puritans leader John Cotton, exhorting his followers on the "principle of nature" which gave "vacant" land to those who would use it, and justified unprovoked attacks on the natives as "a special Commission from God to take their land", and the Puritans' highly selective use of bellicose Old Testament excerpts rather than the pacifist teaching of Jesus as they killed their native neighbors.
Early Virginia, where it was assumed that "all citizens should have the same faith and that it was the duty of any government to enforce religious observance".
The election of 1800, in which Jefferson was accused of being a Muslim! (Doesn't that sound familiar?)
Calvin's non-literal interpretation of parts of the Bible, including Genesis, and fundamentalism's turn to Biblical literalism and denial of science as a recoil from modern life, especially after WWI.
The introduction of papal infallibility - in 1870!
The change in Israelite belief towards monotheism - but not until 6th century BCE.
I could go on and on, but suffice to say this is one fascinating book and sure to interest anyone with curiosity about the religion/violence connection.
Show More
interesting and surprising history of how religion and violence have been intertwined, although not always in a strictly causative manner. In short, what I think Armstrong is claiming that because throughout most of our known history there has been no separation between the secular and the spiritual, even theoretically, that therefore our communal identity (which included the political and religious) was the cause of conflict, not religion as a separate entity. Equally to blame for the beginning of organized violence was the agrarian revolution, c9000-8500 BCE, and civilization, with its need to support and control larger populations. Armstrong also examines the dilemma religions have faced pretty much as soon as they developed: "... if a ruling elite adopted an ethical tradition, such as Buddhism, Christianity, or Islam, the aristocratic clergy usually adapted their theology so that it could support the structural violence of the state." The scholarship is far-reaching and not quickly digested, but it is fascinating. Folded into the narrative are numerous digressions which add to the conclusion that the book's question requires a much broader range of scholarship than might be obvious. And there are some very interesting facts and events to read about, among them:
The first Crusaders, "psychotic" as they massacred thousands of Muslims and Jews, then celebrating their actions in Christian ceremonies.
The siege of Béziers in 1209 by the abbot of Citeaux in an effort to wipe out the Cathari, a popular Christian sect dedicated to poverty, chastity and nonviolence. When asked by his troops how to tell the heretics from the orthodox he had them kill everyone, leaving it to God to "know his own".
John Locke's introduction into the Western philosophical canon of "the myth of religious violence", as he pushed to separate religion and politics.
The Puritans leader John Cotton, exhorting his followers on the "principle of nature" which gave "vacant" land to those who would use it, and justified unprovoked attacks on the natives as "a special Commission from God to take their land", and the Puritans' highly selective use of bellicose Old Testament excerpts rather than the pacifist teaching of Jesus as they killed their native neighbors.
Early Virginia, where it was assumed that "all citizens should have the same faith and that it was the duty of any government to enforce religious observance".
The election of 1800, in which Jefferson was accused of being a Muslim! (Doesn't that sound familiar?)
Calvin's non-literal interpretation of parts of the Bible, including Genesis, and fundamentalism's turn to Biblical literalism and denial of science as a recoil from modern life, especially after WWI.
The introduction of papal infallibility - in 1870!
The change in Israelite belief towards monotheism - but not until 6th century BCE.
I could go on and on, but suffice to say this is one fascinating book and sure to interest anyone with curiosity about the religion/violence connection.
Show Less
LibraryThing member SheilaDeeth
Subtitled Religion and the History of Violence, Fields of Blood is a well-researched, weighty tome, dark with the world’s dark history, and honest in its analysis of church and state.
The author’s research reveals a historical past where faith was part of a community’s self-expression, and
Fields of Blood is a long slow read, filled with intriguing facts, convincing arguments, and thought-provoking analysis. Details from the past lead up to modern war and terrorism, with every argument backed up by well-researched statistics. There are some seriously interesting surprises presented, offering truths not often told when they don’t fit the plot. And the world’s history of violence proves not to be the same as its history of religion. But this book tells both, offers food and facts for thought, and is highly recommended.
Disclosure: Blogging for Books provided this book to me for free in exchange for an honest review.
The author’s research reveals a historical past where faith was part of a community’s self-expression, and
Show More
where conquering nations didn’t, in fact, fight because of faith, or destroy the faiths of those they ruled. Secular power-grabs resulted in wars, and faith, at the service of state, emphasized the fight for God’s purity, uniting peoples under the state's command. But in time of peace, those same religions upheld the value of neighbors' lives under God as a mitigating factor to the danger of state brutality. Secular powers fight wars. But in peace it's often religion that demands fair treatment be offered to enemies and strangers. In the end, while state may indeed be separated from faith in our Western world, state without faith might prove far more dangerous than any scape-goated religion, its unbridled force becoming the most dangerous enemy.Fields of Blood is a long slow read, filled with intriguing facts, convincing arguments, and thought-provoking analysis. Details from the past lead up to modern war and terrorism, with every argument backed up by well-researched statistics. There are some seriously interesting surprises presented, offering truths not often told when they don’t fit the plot. And the world’s history of violence proves not to be the same as its history of religion. But this book tells both, offers food and facts for thought, and is highly recommended.
Disclosure: Blogging for Books provided this book to me for free in exchange for an honest review.
Show Less
LibraryThing member hailelib
This was a long slow read especially toward the end when I kept inserting some lighter fare between chapters. There were lots of ideas that were somewhat new to me about the interaction of religion with other aspects of human culture. Particularly interesting was the idea that the way we perceive
Whether one agrees with Armstrong's theses or not, Fields of Blood is well worth the time. Recommended.
Show More
of religion in the West is relatively new and not really in keeping with the way less Westernized peoples view it. The author shows how the religion of the rulers of a society changes over time to support their need to maintain their society. So, a religion that begins as an advocate for peace and love for all people ends up supporting war and suppression of minorities. Armstrong also is very informative about how the Middle East became such a mess; in her view Western interference, especially since 1900, has been a major factor.Whether one agrees with Armstrong's theses or not, Fields of Blood is well worth the time. Recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Zonnywhoop
Information overload: Karen Armstrong jam-packs this book with so many places, names and terminology it makes it almost unreadable and one of the most boring and laborious tasks I have undertaken recently. At the same time it is a fascinating subject and she certainly has done her homework, it just
Show More
feels like this should be a 12-week course not a history book. Show Less
LibraryThing member kaulsu
Wow, what a tome. I underlined a great deal, much too much to rewrite here. The first half of the book filled in specific blanks in my knowledge, which will be true for many, I'm sure. I found it interesting, but it wasn't a page turner.
The second half I found very interesting. I had shadow
It seemed to me that much of the book proved the case that religious "leaders" we're not advocating, or promoting, violence for true religious reasons, but that the volunteers embraced the supposed devotional battle-cry.
Definitely was a book worth my while. I began the book after attending a book promotional talk given by Armstrong in Washington, DC.
The second half I found very interesting. I had shadow
Show More
knowledge of much of it, but had never really paid close attention to it. I found Armstrong's argument cohesive and believable...except. Except, can one really make a case that the 9/11 bombers weren't religiously motivated (given that they were not following orthodox Islam) when they used prayer to get them through security? It seemed to me that much of the book proved the case that religious "leaders" we're not advocating, or promoting, violence for true religious reasons, but that the volunteers embraced the supposed devotional battle-cry.
Definitely was a book worth my while. I began the book after attending a book promotional talk given by Armstrong in Washington, DC.
Show Less
LibraryThing member RajivC
This is an extremely well written and well researched book.
What I like about the book, is that she does not appear to 'take sides'. The argument for the nexus between politics and religion is well thought through, and she does manage to make the argument that much of the history of violence is not
However, when I have read some of the accounts of Portuguese travellers, and some of the Arabian travellers to India, plus some of the stuff written on the Crusades, I then find the line to be blurred, as the religious fervour that accompanied many of these conquering travellers to Asia, America etc cannot be due to greed and power alone.
It is indeed strange, because religions preach tolerance and love for fellow beings. Yet, it becomes a question of 'My God' versus 'Your God', and I would have only wished that this question was answered better. If it can be at all, that is.
What I like about the book, is that she does not appear to 'take sides'. The argument for the nexus between politics and religion is well thought through, and she does manage to make the argument that much of the history of violence is not
Show More
due to religion alone, but due to politics and the desire for political and economic power. However, when I have read some of the accounts of Portuguese travellers, and some of the Arabian travellers to India, plus some of the stuff written on the Crusades, I then find the line to be blurred, as the religious fervour that accompanied many of these conquering travellers to Asia, America etc cannot be due to greed and power alone.
It is indeed strange, because religions preach tolerance and love for fellow beings. Yet, it becomes a question of 'My God' versus 'Your God', and I would have only wished that this question was answered better. If it can be at all, that is.
Show Less
LibraryThing member nmele
Armstrong makes a nuanced case in her argument that religion is not inherently violent and not responsible, or not solely responsible, for the bloodshed attributed to it by militant atheists. I am afraid she will not convince anyone convinced that religions are the root of all violence, but her
Show More
history of the major faith traditions is enlightening and cumulatively supports her contention that wars start for complex reasons and that warriors usually seek religious justification for their violence. Show Less
LibraryThing member TGPistole
I was not able to finish it before it was due back at the library but sections I read were excellent. I will get on the waiting list to get a chance to finish this book. Karen Armstrong is a gem in the area of religion and history.
LibraryThing member MarcusBastos
Violence, State and Religion
Based on a careful appreciation of the origin and development of religious beliefs, Karen Armstrong makes the argument that religion is not inherently violent. Neither, she points out, the separation of religion and state contributes to an era of peace. Violence, she
Based on a careful appreciation of the origin and development of religious beliefs, Karen Armstrong makes the argument that religion is not inherently violent. Neither, she points out, the separation of religion and state contributes to an era of peace. Violence, she
Show More
argues, springs from the desire of tribes and states to accumulate wealth (lands, goods and money). Religious beliefs, history shows, counterbalance these aspirations and provides an alternative meaning to human life, giving direction to human endeavors. In this book, Karen Armstrong gives special attention to the development of religion in the west, mostly to the interactions of christianity and europeans states. The story is fluent and well researched. Show Less
LibraryThing member erwinkennythomas
Karen Armstrong’s Fields of Blood will have a reader ask the question, “Is violence endemic to human nature?” From mankind’s early beginnings there was a great struggle for survival. When our ancestors were hunter-gathers they had to hunt and kill their prey. These humans lived through
In the 17th and 18th century religion was rejected in the West. During the Age of Enlightenment John Locke propounded the belief of the separation of Church and State, but this period saw the rise of scientific and cultural racism. In Europe and America the suppression of the indigenous populations and African slave trade for economic profit flourished. And Germans, who were world-leading secular thinkers, gave rise to death camps under Hitler that exterminated millions of Jews.
Secularism was marked by Western imperialism, and an imbalance of power. But what became of Asoka’s concept of peace, India’s ahimsa – non-violence, China’s Golden Rule, and Jesus Christ’s teachings to love your neighbor as yourself? In India there were renouncers, European monks took to monasteries, and Confucian and Taoist’s ideals, but still violence was prominent.
In the 20th century violence continued to rage in the Middle East. Historical observers point to many reasons, but one of Islam’s tenets is that of peace. Still there was 9/11, the Israeli-Arab conflicts, jihads, and the horrendous effects of the Jews Six-Day-War. Yet people were witnessing the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, the rise kookism of the Israeli secular right, and fundamentalism in America. It appears that with the rise of more nations with nuclear weapons humankind’s future has become more problematic.
Show More
violent periods in the Paleolithic and Neolithic age. Later Mediterranean peoples continued to experience struggles during the Constantine’s empire, Crusaders, Spanish Inquisition, Wars of Religion, Thirty Years’ War, and Reformation.In the 17th and 18th century religion was rejected in the West. During the Age of Enlightenment John Locke propounded the belief of the separation of Church and State, but this period saw the rise of scientific and cultural racism. In Europe and America the suppression of the indigenous populations and African slave trade for economic profit flourished. And Germans, who were world-leading secular thinkers, gave rise to death camps under Hitler that exterminated millions of Jews.
Secularism was marked by Western imperialism, and an imbalance of power. But what became of Asoka’s concept of peace, India’s ahimsa – non-violence, China’s Golden Rule, and Jesus Christ’s teachings to love your neighbor as yourself? In India there were renouncers, European monks took to monasteries, and Confucian and Taoist’s ideals, but still violence was prominent.
In the 20th century violence continued to rage in the Middle East. Historical observers point to many reasons, but one of Islam’s tenets is that of peace. Still there was 9/11, the Israeli-Arab conflicts, jihads, and the horrendous effects of the Jews Six-Day-War. Yet people were witnessing the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, the rise kookism of the Israeli secular right, and fundamentalism in America. It appears that with the rise of more nations with nuclear weapons humankind’s future has become more problematic.
Show Less
LibraryThing member rivkat
Armstrong wants to argue that religion isn’t inherently violent. Half of the argument works, but half descends into “no true Scotsman” territory wherein every religious justification for violence is followed by her reminding us that other people in the same faith tradition rejected violence.
Show More
Sure, but does religion make violence more likely? Armstrong argues that, for much of human history, religion couldn’t be separated from the state, and it was the state (or even the tribe) that made war. As religion was separated from the state, she argued, it became harder for universalist claims about the equal dignity of persons to push back against nationalism, so national and ethnic hatreds did much more damage than religious hatreds. The Nazis, she suggests, waged ethnic war rather than religious war—though she doesn’t actually spend much time on German religion. Show Less