polytheism vs. monotheism

[Perinquus]

We can look back today and say that the Romans were bastards, but on the specific issue of religious tolerance, they were better than the monotheists.

Hardly proven, but that's more comfortable a position I'm sure. They were a theocratic state (by definition, if the Emperor is a religious figure, and past Emperors are gods, the pantheon are the official gods, etc) and a person can be tried and killed in a gruesome fashion for denying the state religion. I don't see atheists being tortured to death in the US for denying Christianity, do you?

Or did you mean the Christians of Rome? What difference was there? It was wrong either way.

The Roman Empire was not really a theocracy you know. True, they did have a state religion, but then, so does Great Britain to this day. The state religion was something that most people gave public reverence to, but there was a high degree of tolerance for various faiths throughout the Empire until Constantine turned the whole Empire toward Christianity. Basically, as long as you were willing to acknowledge the authority (semi-divine) of the Emperor, the Romans really didn't give a damn what you worshipped.

This is a far cry from a theocracy as we define it - a government by a priest caste, who rule according to religious law, with no separation in public life between religious and secular matters.

Now the Byzantine Empire fits the definition of a theocracy much better, since the Emperor was held to be Christ's appointed vicar on earth, had the power to appoint the patriarch of the Orthodox Church, presided at councils of bishops, etc.

[Darth Gojira]

We can look back today and say that the Romans were bastards, but on the specific issue of religious tolerance, they were better than the monotheists.

Hardly proven, but that's more comfortable a position I'm sure. They were a theocratic state (by definition, if the Emperor is a religious figure, and past Emperors are gods, the pantheon are the official gods, etc) and a person can be tried and killed in a gruesome fashion for denying the state religion. I don't see atheists being tortured to death in the US for denying Christianity, do you?

Or did you mean the Christians of Rome? What difference was there? It was wrong either way.

The Roman Empire was not really a theocracy you know. True, they did have a state religion, but then, so does Great Britain to this day. The state religion was something that most people gave public reverence to, but there was a high degree of tolerance for various faiths throughout the Empire until Constantine turned the whole Empire toward Christianity. Basically, as long as you were willing to acknowledge the authority (semi-divine) of the Emperor, the Romans really didn't give a damn what you worshipped.

This is a far cry from a theocracy as we define it - a government by a priest caste, who rule according to religious law, with no separation in public life between religious and secular matters.

Now the Byzantine Empire fits the definition of a theocracy much better, since the Emperor was held to be Christ's appointed vicar on earth, had the power to appoint the patriarch of the Orthodox Church, presided at councils of bishops, etc.

Speaking of the Roman Empire, isn't it interesting that Constantine and Thesodious are both called "The Great" when both were intolerant bastards who helped drag the Empire to its chaotic grave? Can anyone say "Christian dark age revisionist scholars"?

[Darth Servo]

Speaking of the Roman Empire, isn't it interesting that Constantine and Thesodious are both called "The Great" when both were intolerant bastards who helped drag the Empire to its chaotic grave? Can anyone say "Christian dark age revisionist scholars"?

[fundie reactionary]b-b-b-b-b-but they helped in the great work of the church. That makes them great by definition. God doesn't care about wordly empires.[/fundie]

[Kurgan]

The Roman Empire was not really a theocracy you know. True, they did have a state religion, but then, so does Great Britain to this day.

That makes it a theocracy. It doesn't have to be Iran to be a theocratic state you know. But oh well, nobody would want to admit that Britain has anything in common with a fundie country. ; p

The state religion was something that most people gave public reverence to,

Just as people were complaining earlier that you weren't considered a "true citizen" by some vocal leaders if you weren't a theist in America, in Rome, if you weren't a pagan, you weren't a true citizen either. Jews had their own seperate communities, and Jews that "sold out" weren't liked very well by either side (except for corrupt dignitaries like King Herod, who was seen as a Roman puppet anyway). Christians were seen as whacky cult members, and they had the same blood libel rumors applied to them that were later applied to Jews and witches in later centuries (they eat babies, they drink blood, they have sex orgies in secret, plot against the public order, etc). They were called "atheists" because they rejected the civic religion's gods (which is nigh near treason). The Jews got something of a break since they were seen as a long established tradition and they had been too stuborn to adopt Roman ways (though some did, and again, they were looked down on by their fellow Jews who had refused to conform).

but there was a high degree of tolerance for various faiths throughout the Empire

Much in the way that China does. As long as you don't attempt to resist the public order and acknowledge the sovereignty of the state, you're okay. If you protest or disagree or resist... heh

until Constantine turned the whole Empire toward Christianity.

After his death of course. Prior to his death-bed conversion, he was still the head of the Pagan system, though he patronized the Christian church (which was unusual). Once the Empire became officially Christian, I believe only one major Emperor tried to bring back the pagan system (but that effort was abandoned).

Basically, as long as you were willing to acknowledge the authority (semi-divine) of the Emperor, the Romans really didn't give a damn what you worshipped.

Yeah, pretty much. Prejudice existed, but perhaps it was similar to what hated minorities are viewed in our so called civilized cultures, maybe less so. While most Jews and Christians would refuse to acknowledge a man who called himself God (or the son of God) (other than Jesus for the Christians of course), there were writings that supported the social order or at least appeared to (note Jesus's comments about "giving unto Caesar" and Paul's telling a run-away slave to go home to his master.

This is a far cry from a theocracy as we define it - a government by a priest caste,

Dictionary.com doesn't list a priest caste (Iran doesn't have Shiite priests that I know of, but I could be mistaken). It only says a government subject to or informed by religious authority. So any nation with an official state church could be considered a theocracy. So Germany, Britain, and other nations such as these would qualify.

who rule according to religious law, with no separation in public life between religious and secular matters.

Just how much power the religious group appears to have doesn't really matter, the fact that it is institutionalized in the state and that the laws are based (however loosely) on religious rules puts them squarely in the theocratic camp.

I would suggest looking at theocracies as a spectrum (much like republics) from mild religious control to full fledged clergy lead countries where only one religion is legal (like the Taliban government).

Now the Byzantine Empire fits the definition of a theocracy much better, since the Emperor was held to be Christ's appointed vicar on earth, had the power to appoint the patriarch of the Orthodox Church,

Of course in the middle ages many, if not all kings ruled by "divine right" or were minor gods themselves (like Egypt and Rome) and having an official religion was not uncommon.

Muslim states usually had a deal wherein if you were a Christian or a Jew, you weren't a true citizen, but if you paid a special tax, you could enjoy certain rights and protection, and sometimes this also applied to monotheists of other faiths, but rarely to pagans. Of course the idea was, you got an incentive to convert to Islam. But this is still a theocracy.. the state religion is Islam, and the majority of the population and the leaders belong to this faith.

Now consider Great Britain.. the official religion is Christianity (the Church of England) which is institutionalized in the state. The head of the Church is the King (or Queen) of England, and just below them the Archbishop of Canterbury. Now being a member of another religion (or no religion) isn't illegal, and at least half or more of the population doesn't practice Anglicanism (or Episcopalian as its called over here) but that doesn't change the fact that its established. And last time I checked, these spiritual leaders weren't chosen by the people (and yes, I know that the Monarch is a figurehead, etc. but why have them at all if this isn't a theocracy?).

You couldn't do this in the US without changing first constitutional amendments (anathema to most people). This is not fundamentalism, but it is theocracy. God save the Queen, eh? ; )

[Frank Hipper]

That makes it a theocracy. It doesn't have to be Iran to be a theocratic state you know. But oh well, nobody would want to admit that Britain has anything in common with a fundie country. ; p

The people of Great Britain will be shocked to hear that the C of E is their ruling body.

[Kurgan]

I didn't say that. Its a part of their government however, seeing as how the Queen is the head, and she's a government figure.

And yes, the role of the Queen and the House of Lords are more about image and prestige than real power (wielded by the parliament/commons/PM, etc), but they do have money, and authority.

If Britain was a purely secular state, they wouldn't need these religious figureheads and lords, would they? Why don't they get rid of them? Why have an official church? It's not my fault if people have rhetorically abused the definition of "theocracy" to only include oppressive fundamentalist Islamic regimes.

Now one more note about Constantine, despite his being a tyrant (as all Roman Emperors were pretty much), he did patronize a persecuted minority, making it legally recognized for the first time. This would be akin to the Communist party of China announcing that the Fulon Gong would now recieve state funds to rebuild itself and care for its members and then following through with it. Not tolerant by our standards, but for the time.. extraordinary.

[Darth Wong]

Excuse me, but since the topic of this thread is the relative tendencies of monotheism and polytheism toward intolerance, the "intolerant" part is the important issue, not the "theocracy" part. You people are allowing Kurgen to pull you on a red-herring wild goose chase.

[Kurgan]

oops, double post.

[Kurgan]

Though you misspelled my name, I'll take it that as a compliment.
; )

And I apologize to you if we got off track. So getting back on track... simply being polytheist or monotheist doesn't seem to have any bearing on 'tolerance,' anymore than belonging to a religion predicts whether you will be moral or not.

Historical precedents aside. All of these folks were intolerant by our standards, some moreso than others.

Perhaps the association of tolerance with polytheism in this thread verses monotheism as intolerance comes from our notion of consumer choice. To us.. "freedom" is epitomized in having a variety of choices. You don't have to buy windows, you can use linux or mac os. You don't have to be a democrat, you can choose the republicans or some third party. You don't have to drink only coke, etc.

Within the pagan system, you have a variety of gods to choose from (and in Hinduism you have the most of all, 330 million) so to us, it appears that a variety of beliefs can be more easily accomodated into the system. Whereas in monotheism you just see the one choice...a monopoly.

But, if we accept that as a fair analogy, choosing outside the system is somewhat different. Instead of using Windows or Mac OS, you choose not to use computers. Or something like that. With polytheism, if you believe in one of the gods, technically you're accepting the system, but if you believe in some god totally outside the system (and the members in that system), you're rejecting it.

[Darth Gojira]

Speaking of the Roman Empire, isn't it interesting that Constantine and Thesodious are both called "The Great" when both were intolerant bastards who helped drag the Empire to its chaotic grave? Can anyone say "Christian dark age revisionist scholars"?

[fundie reactionary]b-b-b-b-b-but they helped in the great work of the church. That makes them great by definition. God doesn't care about wordly empires.[/fundie]

LOL!! That's EXACTLY what even some moderates would say!

[Kurgan]

Mark Ellis, a conservative Jew, disagrees. He uses the example of "Constantinian Christianity" (hypocritical status-quo, institutionalized nominalism in the church) to illustrate his opposition to the actions of the State of Israel and counter their bogus justifications for their behavior (well Israel has a right to exist/its neighbors are evil, etc).

Thus, he calls those who blindly support Israel followers of "Constantinian Judaism."

(In other words, Jews have been the victims so long, many refuse to see their own culpability in victimizing others, thus becoming what they hated most.)

[Kuroneko]

Monotheism certainly isn't an "advance", rather a change in global society. It just so happens that one religion became more prominent than others. Christianity has done a few -good- things though, as much as I hate to admit it, like ending the Aztec human sacrifice ritual.

While at practically the same time, introducing an even bloodier Inquisition. Oh what a great thing those sanctimonious bastards came along and destroyed an entire civilization, while moralizing over the proper way to do live sacrifices (they're only OK if done in the name of the True Faith, not some heathen wickedness!). Freakin' hypocrites.

[Kuroneko]

Just for the sake of completeness, the Romans did enjoy watching Christians be tortured. Really, at some level or another every religion and religious system is intolerant.

Well, yeah. But if some cult came along and burned your city in what became the largest arson in your city's history, I'm willing to bet you'd want the silly buggers to pay dearly.

[Perinquus]

Monotheism certainly isn't an "advance", rather a change in global society. It just so happens that one religion became more prominent than others. Christianity has done a few -good- things though, as much as I hate to admit it, like ending the Aztec human sacrifice ritual.

While at practically the same time, introducing an even bloodier Inquisition. Oh what a great thing those sanctimonious bastards came along and destroyed an entire civilization, while moralizing over the proper way to do live sacrifices (they're only OK if done in the name of the True Faith, not some heathen wickedness!). Freakin' hypocrites.

Wait a minute now, as an atheist, I am as quick as anyone to point out Christianity's faults, but let's be honest here. Today historians estimate the Aztecs sacrficed as many as twenty thousand people every year to their gods, and that's in Tenochtitlan alone. The Inquisition was not responsible for nearly so many deaths in Mexico. It is simply not true to claim the Spaniards introduced even bloodier practices.

There is such a thing as a value judgement. And while I do not exactly admire or approve of what the Spaniards replaced the Aztec religion with, nonetheless, I think the Spaniards did the indigenous peoples of Mexico a favor when they stamped out the cult of Huitzilpochtli.

[Kurgan]

If the argument was that polytheists were less murderers than monotheists, I don't think you can make much of a case. In barbaric times, both were quite... well.. barbaric.

And in the modern era we have killers of all kinds, who believed in many gods, one god, or none.

Is Joe Stalin a better man than Emperor Nero or the Grand Inquisitor (or the Aztecs, as mentioned above)?

Human depravity is human depravity. I guess its like Mike keeps ranting about over and over, it's not what moral code or ideology you claim to believe in, it's what you actually do with it in life that really matters.

[Kuroneko]

Wait a minute now, as an atheist, I am as quick as anyone to point out Christianity's faults, but let's be honest here. Today historians estimate the Aztecs sacrficed as many as twenty thousand of people every year to their gods, and that's in Tenochtitlan alone. The Inquisition was not responsible for nearly so many deaths in Mexico. It is simply not true to claim the Spaniards introduced even bloodier practices.

Oh, puuey. As the figure of 20,000 was made by the Spaniards themselves, who had an interest in conquering them, I really question its validity. Even if correct, the Spaniards killed more than twice that in a single day when storming it.

I did not mean to imply that the Inquisition was responsible for more deaths than Aztec sacrifices (my apologies if my post read that way), that was to point out that the practice of human sacrifice was already done by the Spaniards themselves (of course they didn't see it as such).

I simply maintain that the Spaniards were responsible for more Aztec deaths than the Aztec's own (relatively short-lived) practice of human sacrifice. I'm willing to bet that still holds true even if one discounts deaths by European diseases.

[Kuroneko]

If the argument was that polytheists were less murderers than monotheists, I don't think you can make much of a case. In barbaric times, both were quite... well.. barbaric.

Oh, I didn't argue such a thing. I was mostly venting.

Is Joe Stalin a better man than Emperor Nero or the Grand Inquisitor (or the Aztecs, as mentioned above)?

In my opinion, Nero was the better man. Not that that's saying much, of course, as it is Stalin that he's being compared to...

[Kurgan]

Sure. Of course we're arguing who's better between two mass murderers. That's the point... we can still step back and say they were both wrong.

; )

[Perinquus]

The Aztecs were constantly at "war" with neighboring tribes and groups. The goal of this constant warfare was to collect live prisoners for sacrifice. The Aztecs worshipped a war god called Huitzilpochtli, who took on the likeness of the sun over time. It was thought that in order to insure the sun's arrival each day, a steady supply of human hearts had to be offered in holy sacrifice. They believed that the sun and earth had already been destroyed four times, and in their time of the 5th sun, final destruction would soon be upon them. In order to delay this dreadful fate, the practice of human sacrifice became a major element in Aztec society and livelihood.

Based on all the evidence, and that includes archaeological, not just what the Spaniards wrote down themselves, historians today think that figure I gave is pretty accurate. Given that the warfare the Aztecs engaged in was constant and ongoing, I think the actions the Spaniards took may well have claimed fewer lives in the end that the Aztecs would have claimed over the course of the next few centuries had the Spanish never arrived.

[Kuroneko]

Hmm... examening the evidence that I have at my disposal for that assertion, I begin to find it lacking...

I concede this point.

[Kurgan]

A good closing quote would be that one (sorry I forget who said it, but the gist is) he's an atheist, but really, he's just denying one more god than you.


I propose that the next debate/topic should be "Witchcraft vs. Sorcery"

Any takers? ; )