Amendment to the Geneva Convention

[WarriorMonk]

If the Geneva Convention can be modified like any other political document, why don't we just add one that could potentially solve quite a few problems:

Anyone fighting under a religious banner does not have the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Think about it, the UN and the Geneva Convention are all about keeping warfare straight, and the UN for the most part is trying to promote peace.

Religion, in the past, has inspired fanaticism from the Crusades to the current day al Qaeda terrorists and Palestinian militants and the Bosnian/Serbian conflicts. When the gods said "thou shalt not kill", they never really seemed to have a problem with intentional deaths in their name - hell, more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.

Religion, however, is something that humans were supposed to live by, to make themselves better people, and lead to some sort of state of happiness. To use religion as an excuse for war twists the idea of the very thing that keeps the whole darned world from tipping into total chaos.

It's probably a little too simplistic, but what do you guys think?

[tsuri]

Anyone fighting under a religious banner does not have the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Even if he or she is a valid combatant? This will only solve part of the problem. There need to be clear definitions and regulations for the current enemy, so called illegal combatants.
Irregulars, Militias, Partisans. The methods are the problem not the motivation. They could just as well be fighting for Pepsi.
Someone who fights for a magical man on a cloud will not care about the Geneva Convention anyways..

[ElHombre]

but what about the swiss guard? ;-)

seriously, it's one of those ideas that would run into problems if it were to be put into practice. how would the inevitable, 'god is on our side' exclamtions be seen by opposing forces?

[Tamir]

If the Geneva Convention can be modified like any other political document, why don't we just add one that could potentially solve quite a few problems:

Anyone fighting under a religious banner does not have the protection of the Geneva Convention.

Think about it, the UN and the Geneva Convention are all about keeping warfare straight, and the UN for the most part is trying to promote peace.

Religion, in the past, has inspired fanaticism from the Crusades to the current day al Qaeda terrorists and Palestinian militants and the Bosnian/Serbian conflicts. When the gods said "thou shalt not kill", they never really seemed to have a problem with intentional deaths in their name
no "gods" said "thou shalt not kill", educate yourself and stop reading translations.
- hell, more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason. No, sorry, that's bull****. A lot more people were killed by secular parties and over materialistic reasons.

Religion, however, is something that humans were supposed to live by, to make themselves better people, and lead to some sort of state of happiness. To use religion as an excuse for war twists the idea of the very thing that keeps the whole darned world from tipping into total chaos.

It's probably a little too simplistic, but what do you guys think?

You obviously have no idea what religion is, and what you are talking about. All three monotheistic religions have the concepts of war and just war embedded within from the begining.

[Daniel San]

The Geneva conventions aren't "political documents", whatever that may be.
There is no amendment procedure contained in the conventions so if there were to be modifications to the text of the Geneva conventions it would have to be negociated between the different parties to it, ie. several years of diplomatic and bureaucratic non-sense before obtaining something that would most likely not be what you wished for.

[tsuri]

but what about the swiss guard?

It can be a matter of debate wheter the Swiss Guard is fighting for religion or is simply fulfilling the contract with the absolutist monarch of the Vatican.

[Daniel San]

Tamir, do you have estimates or actual figures to prove what you're upholding as being a fact? Sure, lots of people lost their lives because of territorial wars but lots of people lost their lives in religious wars.

Also, how can you not read a translated version of the Bible? Or rather, do you read Aramaic or ancient Greek? Where can I find a original version of the Bible? Amazon.com, maybe? My point is, whatever may say the original version of a religious text, what really matters is how it was interpreted historically and what meaning is given to it by those who claim to adhere to the religion supported by the text.

[ex1cdo]

When the gods said "thou shalt not kill", they never really seemed to have a problem with intentional deaths in their name - hell, more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.
I don't think any god, if such a thing exists, made any such pronouncement. This is a human interpretation of the rendering of a myth of some sort.

In any event, I think it is commonly accepted that the Christian commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is a misinterpretation of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. "Thou shalt not commit murder" is perhaps more accurate, and leaves the door open for any number of outrages in the name of one's religion.

[Tamir]

According the Eckhardt's research, between 30th century BC and the end of the 19th century AD the estimate is about 40.5 million war related deaths, more than half in the 18th and 19th centuries alone.
About 110 million war deaths just in the 20th century.
Which major war was fought in the name of religion in the last couple of centuries?

The bible said, "lo tirzah" Thou shall not commit murder/homocide. War and just war are an inherent part of the bible.

[WarriorMonk]

I give up. Someone just lock this...

[ed316]

Rewrite it for today's battlefield.

[Daniel San]

According the Eckhardt's research, between 30BC and the end of th 19th century the estimate is about 40.5 million war related deaths, more than half in the 18th and 19th centuries alone.
About 110 million war deaths just in the 20th century.
Which major war was fought in the name of religion in the last couple of centuries?

All I needed was figures, there they are. Like Thomas, I see and now I believe.

[Royal]

If the Geneva Convention can be modified like any other political document, why don't we just add one that could potentially solve quite a few problems:

Anyone fighting under a religious banner does not have the protection of the Geneva Convention.

If you look at a copy of the GC's you will notice that they are printed by, were sponsored by and are monitored by the International Comittee of the Red Cross (and Red Crescent) - what are the cross and crescent if not religious symbols?

[Tamir]

Here, I found an online version
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.2.GIF

As you can see modern "instrumental" wars have killed more people then ever in history. And more than that, the truth is, that only a very small number of ancient wars really were based on relgious concerns.

[Clarsachier]

I give up. Someone just lock this...

Actually, amending the Geneva convention is an interesting idea. In itself.

Thing is, that 'religous extremism' by it's nature, cancels out any other ideolgy such as international laws and ect.

[SamHamam]

If you look at a copy of the GC's you will notice that they are printed by, were sponsored by and are monitored by the International Comittee of the Red Cross (and Red Crescent) - what are the cross and crescent if not religious symbols?

Convinient geometrical shapes.

The red cross (as you know I'm sure) orginated simply by reversing the Swiss flag, the christian cross is a different shape. It's an unfortunate reality that the confusion has arisen.

It happens the other way as well, for instance when English troops on Telic were banned from flying their flag as it was, to quote from the order, "being confused with the flag of the International Red Cross". When in plain clothes abroard a few years ago I had in a fit of patrotism sewn an English flag on my jacket, I removed after twice been mistaken for a medic.

[SamHamam]

............................

[Royal]

The red cross (as you know I'm sure) orginated simply by reversing the swiss flag, the christian cross is a different shape. It's an unfortunate reality that the confusion has arisen.

I do indeed. But where did the Swiss flag, or for that matter the English one. They all originate from our Christain heritage and they all give that 'crusader' impression - that's why the Red Crescent was chosen as Muslim alternative.