Two Problems with Wars of Religion

Wars of religion are theologically absurd. The economics of politics tells us more.

St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre (1572), by François Dubois. Wikipedia Commons.

The first problem I will consider is more philosophical or theological than economic. It is illustrated by President Donald Trump’s threat of a military intervention to protect Christians against Islamist attacks in Nigeria, at least according to what he wrote on his social media, which was also reported by the Financial Times (“Donald Trump Threatens Nigeria with Military Action over Violence Against Christians,” November 1, 2025). His words:

“If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians!”

Must the U.S. military “viciously” intervene in Nigeria because the victims of terrorism are Christians and their killers are Islamic? That seems to be Mr. Trump’s claim, especially since he had promised to end “forever wars.” (Incidentally, what does it mean that his retaliation would be “sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians”?)

The theological question is, why would a Christian want to kill Muslims even to prevent them from killing other Christians? On the one hand, the martyred Christians are eligible for a blissful eternal life, which has an infinite value, incommensurable with any suffering in their infinitesimally short life on this earth. On the other hand, killing a Muslim for attacking Christians will send him to hell for eternity, while letting him live offers him a chance, as small as it may be, to later discover the true religion and save his soul. Isn’t the value of a soul infinite? Of course, one may shoot at a group of people attacking another group because the former has no legitimate reason to attack, but this argument for a just war is not of the essence of wars of religion.

This is as far as we (or I) can go here toward a theological proof that wars of religion are absurd. Economics, however, can explain why they happen, which is the second problem I want to address. This problem is properly economic as it concerns the study of individual (and political) incentives and choices, and their social consequences. Given a chance, a typical ruler will readily use religious crusades to increase his power (and perhaps his wealth). All rulers, even the most absolute, are politicians by definition: they must maneuver to help their favorite subjects to the detriment of other subjects. A politician wanting to launch a religious war will have to commit many other sins besides his contemplated murders, including lying to his subjects to justify military actions motivated by his political self-interest. We have little reason a priori to believe that, between politician Donald Trump and politician Mohammed Idris, the greater liar is the latter—see the Financial Times:

Speaking to the FT before Trump’s statement, Mohammed Idris, information minister [of Nigeria], rejected any suggestion Nigeria’s government was complicit in persecution of Christians, even by neglect.

More Muslims were killed in attacks by Islamist extremists, Idris said, adding that the majority of those took place in the predominantly Muslim north of the country.

Such massacres are horrible, not because the victims are Christians, but because they are human beings. An American politician, however, may win more votes and support by suggesting that he wants to engage in a holy war.