The beginning of Religious intolerance?

[callmeclemens]

I've been doing a great deal of research recently into ancient Religions, especially those that neighbored the lands of my Ancestors. I've come to find that it was very common for a very long time to respect the Gods of your neighbors. Even as Rome expanded they still allowed those conquered to keep their own Gods, while they did implement the worship of their own. It would seem that with the rise of Christianity came the rise of religious intolerance, but that's just what I've come to so far. Your thoughts?

[SPhoenix]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

I think it traces back to Judaism, if not further. Judaism, if you read the OT, used their religious propaganda well before the christians usurped their book and took over their methodology.

[thalassa]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

There were problems in Egypt with the Pharaoh that decided to become a monotheist, and there was quite a bit of intolerance towards Jews and Christians. The problem here is that religion had a much larger footprint in the ancient world, particularly with regard to politics, and the gods were localized entities entrenched in the everyday life of those peoples. Competition between polytheism wasn't a big deal--what is one more god in the mix? Better to recognize your neighbor's god than to shun him and risk offending him. But, that doesn't mean that denial of those gods was also allowed...I might add that in a number of ancient polytheist societies, denial of the local gods was a criminal act. The reason that Christians were persecuted in Rome was because they were a political thread to the empire in their denial of a divine emperor. And on the other hand, when you only believe in one god, that means the rest have to be something else... There is no way to say which came first--its a bit like the chicken and the egg.

This is nothing new...and its not something Christians invented. But, since Christianity won, politically and religiously, and became incorporated into every day life, it gets the biggest share of the blame. Really though, its just one piece of the perfect storm.

[callmeclemens]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

There were problems in Egypt with the Pharaoh that decided to become a monotheist, and there was quite a bit of intolerance towards Jews and Christians. The problem here is that religion had a much larger footprint in the ancient world, particularly with regard to politics, and the gods were localized entities entrenched in the everyday life of those peoples. Competition between polytheism wasn't a big deal--what is one more god in the mix? Better to recognize your neighbor's god than to shun him and risk offending him. But, that doesn't mean that denial of those gods was also allowed...I might add that in a number of ancient polytheist societies, denial of the local gods was a criminal act. The reason that Christians were persecuted in Rome was because they were a political thread to the empire in their denial of a divine emperor. And on the other hand, when you only believe in one god, that means the rest have to be something else... There is no way to say which came first--its a bit like the chicken and the egg.

This is nothing new...and its not something Christians invented. But, since Christianity won, politically and religiously, and became incorporated into every day life, it gets the biggest share of the blame. Really though, its just one piece of the perfect storm.

I wasn't saying Christianity started it, but I saw brutal intolerance towards Christians. Though they certainly have had a hand in the modern intolerance.

The book I was reading spoke a lot about Greece and Rome, I really want to look into the Abrahamic areas.

[Malflick]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

At least as far as I've found in history, religious intolerance comes from:
1. Religious doctrines that encourage the singleness of your own religion. ("Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." etc) When your religion specifically notes that other religions are, in fact, wrong and that following them is harmful to other people, than it becomes a moral duty for followers to discourage other religions. This is generally why monotheists become intolerant.
2. When new religions break social orders. (Christians refusing to sacrifice to the Gods in Rome, which was a social duty [for example, all citizens had to sacrifice at the temples during a census]. Christians breaking the caste system in India. Christians challenging dictators in Africa. Atheists challenging prayer in schools. Etc.) This is generally where monotheists get discriminated against historically, however it is entirely dependent on being a religion that has less power then the government, and having a government that either is intrinsically tied to a religion (Rome) or has a very specific anti-religious slant (the USSR).

Rome respected Judaism because instead of sacrificing to the Gods, they paid a tax to Rome to support the Emperor; also they respected the age of the religion.

Its sad to see the Christianity in the USA falling into the traps of the past, but that's what happens when you're the dominant religion and other religions (according to some Christians, not this one) need to be cleansed from the Earth for their follower's own good...

My 0.02. You might disagree or have found other evidence, but that's what I've discovered in my own historical searches.

[nbdy]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

I was recently thinking something tangential to this, and against better judgment I am going to post it. I was driving home from meeting with a group of mostly Wiccans and their words about what had drawn them toward their religion were fresh in my mind. In almost every story was an expression of disgust for whatever Christian faith they'd experienced, so it was not just a pull factor toward a 'pagan' tradition but also a push factor away from the dominant religious structures in the U.S. So here is the thought -- once upon a time, when Christianity was just another cult in a largely pagan world, I suspect the story was the same, with pagans leaving the faiths they were brought up in because they felt empty, because of abuses of those in power, because of the centrality of money, etc, etc. The biggest difference between pagan faiths today and mainstream faiths may simply be a matter of power. I have certainly seen the corruption and implosion of pagan groups with just a little power in play, and it takes little imagination to extrapolate that to a larger scale.

[Yazichestvo]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

It's tricky to lump all forms of religious intolerance together, as they have different motives.

Persecution of atheists and agnostics goes back at least to ancient Greece (and no doubt even farther) and is probably a potential complication for any form of theism.

Persecution of religious groups for political reasons is technically "Religious intolerance", and yet even if there was no religion, we would probably still have similar cases of discrimination of certain groups, just on different pretext, or with the real political motivations laid bare. Really, I don't even include this category.

Then there's intolerance based on exclusiveness; an exclusive religion holding all others to be totally false or even evil. I know this may ruffle some feathers, but this type of intolerance is definitely a defining characteristic of Abrahamic religion. Yes, sure, pagan faiths can be corrupt and evil too, but to simply wave your hand and say "they're all the same" is to ignore the historical significance of a revolutionary spiritual idea: the idea that all other teachings are false and evil. It is no coincidence that these "exclusive" faiths have come to dominate the world. They are specifically designed to attack and eliminate other religions, absorbing their previous followers. If you want proof that Christianity and Islam are unique in how they treat other faiths, you need only look at their success.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

The trial and execution of Socrates is often cited as an example of religious intolerance. Personally I think he was executed because he was regarded as a breeder of tyrants (Alcibiades for a start - the 5th century BCE was a time of almost constant political struggles and wars).

And of course its important to remember that Christians persecuted each other, too.

[Aeran]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

I wouldn't count the Socrates thing as religious intolerance, they didn't kill him because of his religion specifically. And with the Akhenaten thing, I think the issue wasn't so much intolerance of the new religion so much as resentment when he tried to make them abandon their old gods for it.

To me it seemed to begin with Judaism, and the idea of one supreme god, which then spread to Christianity, and you guys all know the rest of the story. Kind of sad really, it seems almost idyllic to look back on how most ancient cultures would just let you worship whoever you wanted as long as you let them do the same.

[nbdy]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

"it seems almost idyllic to look back on how most ancient cultures would just let you worship whoever you wanted as long as you let them do the same." Really? I suspect there is no "golden age" of peace and brotherly love somewhere in the remote past -- people have always been people, and always been of a tribal nature. This type of pagan mythos is no better than the self-deluding stories Christians tell of their "holy" past. People are just people. Yes, what we believe matters, but for some reason the same structures and patterns exist in every known human society no matter what their beliefs are or were. I do not think romanticizing an unknown past is healthy or helpful -- it is just another means of vilifying "them," because "we" were (supposedly) not like that before "they" were around. It is playing the same game that is being criticized and is, of course, only human. So, I guess for me, the seeds of religious intolerance lie in the very nature of being human, in the way our tribal mind works -- "like me" at one end of the continuum and "not like me" at the other, and religious belief is just one of the parameters.
p.s. I absolutely love stories with golden age themes, but see them as a means for communicating ideals rather than something having much resemblance to history.

[Aeran]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

"it seems almost idyllic to look back on how most ancient cultures would just let you worship whoever you wanted as long as you let them do the same." Really? I suspect there is no "golden age" of peace and brotherly love somewhere in the remote past -- people have always been people, and always been of a tribal nature. This type of pagan mythos is no better than the self-deluding stories Christians tell of their "holy" past. People are just people. Yes, what we believe matters, but for some reason the same structures and patterns exist in every known human society no matter what their beliefs are or were. I do not think romanticizing an unknown past is healthy or helpful -- it is just another means of vilifying "them," because "we" were (supposedly) not like that before "they" were around. It is playing the same game that is being criticized and is, of course, only human. So, I guess for me, the seeds of religious intolerance lie in the very nature of being human, in the way our tribal mind works -- "like me" at one end of the continuum and "not like me" at the other, and religious belief is just one of the parameters.
p.s. I absolutely love stories with golden age themes, but see them as a means for communicating ideals rather than something having much resemblance to history.

I think you read a bit too much into what I said. Perhaps 'idyllic' wasn't a good word choice. Obviously it wasn't some peaceful golden age, and I wasn't trying to portray it as such, human nature is inherently tribal and yeah there would have been a ton of fighting. But, given how much conflict we have over religion in this day and age, it's nice to be able to look back and see that at least at some stage, somewhere, people managed to just shrug and go on with their lives when they found out that their neighbors worshiped a different god. That they found a way to live and let live at least with this one particular issue. Even if going on with their lives meant raiding aforementioned neighbors cattle fields or conquering them and forcing them to live under a new ruler or looting their cities or whatever. People can find enough reasons to kill eachother without using religion as another one.

[callmeclemens]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

I always wondered if States could be more succesful functioning more as Nation States. Now though It seems the results would be poor for a lot of folks, especially when it comes to human rights.

[Yazichestvo]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

The trial and execution of Socrates is often cited as an example of religious intolerance. Personally I think he was executed because he was regarded as a breeder of tyrants (Alcibiades for a start - the 5th century BCE was a time of almost constant political struggles and wars).

And of course its important to remember that Christians persecuted each other, too.

To be honest, I'm surprised that everyone has latched onto that one particular example. I personally was thinking about Diagoras. There could be backlashes in ancient Greece against those who appeared not to believe. Although it does seem that by the time Epicureanism reared its head, most of the ancient world had gotten beyond that.

[ChainLightning]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

For the purpose of this discussion I'm going omit the concept of "organized religion".

I have to say that, in my findings, the beginning of intolerance was born long, long before the anti-monotheistic beliefs that we find in conjunction with the birth of Judaism and indeed throwing the lions some Christians. As been said, people were still people before that.

Instead, I look to the folly of enlightenment, as a modern contrivance. The more people learn about their neighbors beliefs, the less they fear it. Wrong. That's just wishful thinking. I'd love to say that we've come a long way, in the field of compassion and understanding, but the truth is that we've only come full circle, as a civilization, a society. We have Christian-bashing, Satanist stigmas, witch hunts and all around bigotry as much today as a few thousand years ago. Except that there's more of us around, now, to spread that vile intolerance.

It's to that end that I feel that there *was* once a Golden Age of tolerance, in religious beliefs. They were likely called pre-neanderthals. We'll see that same level of tolerance again, too, when the human animal finally finishes it's tenure and meets extinction.

[Yazichestvo]

Re: The beginning of Religious intolerance?

For the purpose of this discussion I'm going omit the concept of "organized religion".

I have to say that, in my findings, the beginning of intolerance was born long, long before the anti-monotheistic beliefs that we find in conjunction with the birth of Judaism and indeed throwing the lions some Christians. As been said, people were still people before that.

Instead, I look to the folly of enlightenment, as a modern contrivance. The more people learn about their neighbors beliefs, the less they fear it. Wrong. That's just wishful thinking. I'd love to say that we've come a long way, in the field of compassion and understanding, but the truth is that we've only come full circle, as a civilization, a society. We have Christian-bashing, Satanist stigmas, witch hunts and all around bigotry as much today as a few thousand years ago. Except that there's more of us around, now, to spread that vile intolerance.

It's to that end that I feel that there *was* once a Golden Age of tolerance, in religious beliefs. They were likely called pre-neanderthals. We'll see that same level of tolerance again, too, when the human animal finally finishes it's tenure and meets extinction.

Enlightenment is relative. A baseline level of prejudice is inevitable, with or without religion. Perhaps there was no golden age of tolerance, but since Abrahamic religion, there has been no silver or bronze either. The paganism of antiquity for all its faults, was an entirely different beast in terms of tolerance from Judaism and Christianity.

Maximus of Tyre, in about 200 B.C., wrote;

"God (Theos) himself- the father and fashioner of all things, that is, older than the sun or the sky, greater than time or eternity, etc... is unnameable...- but we, being unable to apprehend his essence use the help of sounds and names and pictures, of beaten gold and ivory and silver, of plants and rivers, mountain peaks and torrents, yearning for knowledge of him, and in our weakness naming all that is beautiful in this world after his nature- just as happens to earthly lovers. To them, the most beautiful sight will be the actual form of the beloved, but for rememberance' sake they will be happy with the sight of...- anything in the world that awakens the memory of the beloved. Why should I further examine and pass judgment upon images? Let men know what is divine, let them know; that is all. If a Greek is stirred to remember of God by the art of Pheidias, or an Egyptian by paying worship to animals, another man by a river, another by fire- I have no anger for their divergences; only let them know, let them love, let them remember."

Celsus, nearly four centuries later wrote:

"...in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and were thus distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the administration of the world is carried on. And whatever is done among each nation in this way would be rightly done, wherever it was agreeable to the wishes (of the superintending powers), while it would be an act of impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in the various places."

So yes, in fact, the contact with many foreign religions *did* breed a degree tolerance among the Greeks and Romans. Even Judaism wasn't systematically persecuted, as long as they did not revolt, proving that civilized pagans were not inherently intolerant- even of monotheists. Celsus is in fact referring to Judaism in the passage above.