Religion as Pretence for Conflict

Religion has always been a strong player in the justification of wars and conflicts.
Whether concerning the Crusades or Bushs war on terror, some form of God is usually cited by
at least one and often both sides of the conflict. The Spanish colonization of America was no
different. Parry and Keith show that while the Spanish worshipped a Christian God, The natives
were seen to have worshipped The Devil, to whom they would sacrifice the hearts of living
human beings
1
. Clendinnen further illustrates the huge political importance religion played in
the conflicts of 16
th
century Mexico, with religious icons having been the highest prize in a
victorious outcome
2
. The Spanish used these religious differences as pretence for killing and
enslaving many Native Americans, and for controlling the lands which were inhabited by these
natives.

The Spanish were a very religious people. It is difficult to find a Spaniard account of the
American conquest without some mention of religion, for example Helps passage on The
Legitimacy of Conquest.
3
Within this piece, the Spanish presented an ultimatum to the Natives
of Mexico; that they accept the Spanish God, royalties, and Pope as their rulers, or be attacked.
3

Because most Amerindians were unlikely to even understand these words, spoken in Spanish, let
alone relinquish their fealty to a king and a God they had never heard of, this statement only
served as an excuse for the Spanish to take aggressive action upon the natives. The claim to
religion being the main reason for conflict was further discussed in the 1550s by Sepulveda. He
believed the Spanish religion had converted the natives From being impious servants of the
Devil to becoming believers in the true God.
1
Sepulveda used a past example of Romes
attempt at world conquest (which was also justified through means of religion) to further his
point that Christianity should be forced upon the Amerindians. This is done somewhat
paradoxically, considering the Romans worshipped an altogether different religion than the
Spanish
1
, detracting from the feasibility that religion was indeed the sole reason for waging war
with the Natives.

Another point to consider is the political importance religion seemed to play when such
conflicts as the Spanish conquest arose. War, says Clendinnen, Was a sacred contest, the
outcome unknown but preordained, revealing which city, which local deity, would rightfully
dominate another.
2
This point clearly exhibits the role Gods were thought to have played
during the wars that took place within Mexico. Under this conjecture, the Spanish would have
surely yearned for a battle they knew they couldnt lose, assuming their God to be the stronger.
The rules of war
2
that were a result of the belief that war was sacred also benefited the Spanish
in other ways. Because war took place outside the defending city, a Spaniard victory would also
allow for complete control of an undamaged city, the only act of desecration being to set the
temple of that citys deity on fire. These cities could then be made to pay tribute to the Spanish,
or risk further attack.
2
A religious aspect to war, then, was clearly beneficial for the Spaniards.

One final aspect comes from the writings of Las Casas, as outlined by Parry and Keith.
Here was a man from Spain who argued that the Spanish Religion of Christianity should not
have presumed to punish the religious acts of the Natives, because they did not fall under the
jurisdiction of Christianity
1
. Despite the fact that thousands of Amerindians seemed to be
sacrificed in the name of religion each year
4
, Casas suggests a more passive approach to convert
the Natives. He recognizes that the Natives seem to have a very accepting nature, that if they
had the right teachers they might be willing to learn the Christian ways. Casas even goes so far
as to compare some aspects of the piety of the Natives to that of Christianity, that they show a
wonderful concern about their salvation and their soul a clear sign of eternal predestination that
is characteristic of Christians.
1
This passage also mentions that, although certain Spanish
claimed to have the approval of the Pope to attack the Amerindians, the Pope in fact did not
condone any conflict, but rather gave permission for the kings of Castile to rule those Natives
whom had willingly committed to the Christian faith.
1


As this paper argues, the writings of Parry, Keith, and Clendinnon can be used to show
that the aggressive nature of the Spanish towards the Natives of America was done under the
pretence of religious acts. Although it is likely that, to some extent, there were religious aspects
to the conflict, the amount of emphasis that is put by the Spaniards on the Christian reasons for
war is misguided. It is more probable that other political angles, such as the desire for wealth,
land, and followers, not to mention the natural aggressive nature of humans, played important
factors as well. To this day, there is still a large amount of conflict surrounding religious
differences, which should beg the question: How many of these wars are really about religious
beliefs, and how many are simply utilizing religion to mask some less pious ambition?





Works Cited
1. John H. Parry, and Robert G. Keith, eds., New Iberian World: A Documentary History of
the Discovery and Settlement of Latin America to the Early 17
th
Century (New York:
Times Books: Hector & Rose, 1984), 1: 323-334.
2. Inga Clendinnen, Fierce and Unnatural Cruelty: Cortes and the Conquest of Mexico.
Representations, 1991 (33), pp. 65-67, 76-84.
3. Arthur Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America and Its Relation to the History of
Slavery and to the government of the Colonies, v. 1 (London, 1900), pp. 264-267.
4. Hernan Cortes, Letters from Mexico, ed. And trans. Anthony Pagden (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1986), pp. 30-37, 101-108.