Monotheism without institutional violence?

Could Christianity or Islam become successful by peaceful means?

Christianity spread to point where it was a significant minority religion, then got a lucky with a sympathetic Emperor, after which all Emperors after save one were Christian. Immediately afterwards social pressure and eventually violence are used to enforce Christianity. This is followed in the middle ages by the faith being spread mostly by the sword or with at least the threat of violence. Only exception I can think of is Ireland.

Islam spreads at its start through violence. Once it conquers non Arab area it spreads over the centuries as native populations convert gradually for social gain.

Can either religion become major faiths without it or with a competition that comes up with a more effective response "in time" to respond effectively to said violence.

Monotheism is intolerant by its nature. when you say there is only one god then it is intolerable to allow others to say otherwise.

Dfront21 said:

Monotheism is intolerant by its nature. when you say there is only one god then it is intolerable to allow others to say otherwise.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I suppose you could have a monotheism that asserts that their god is not just the only god but all other gods are merely an aspect of the one god. That could win you some more peaceful converts.

I don't think monotheism is inherently more intolerant by nature. Most pantheons have some level of exclusivity (i.e. these 8 are the ONLY true gods, etc.) and have some antipathy toward the pantheons of their neighbors. You certainly had wars between some polytheistic systems, with some undercurrent of religion (their priests advocating destroying evil neighbors, etc). We just have less recorded explanations of the reasons for going to war and THAT is, in part, because there has been a general historical tendency toward monotheistic systems, so we have less detail of the polytheistic wars (Egypt, Hittite, Babylon, Ur, Aztec, Inca, etc).

I think another reason that we look back through history and perceive monotheistic systems as intolerant is that we have detail on monotheistic-based wars (and detail on the arguments for war) and that the conquest success of systems that happened to be monotheistic suggests a link. Certainly, there were times when Christianity was intolerant to the point of conquest, and that was fundamental to early (and some present) Islam. However, in most cases it wasn't religion truly driving the conquest, but the political situation and we just arrive at an incorrect logical assumption (A is Monotheistic and conquered B who isn't, therefore, A conquered B because of religion).

Dfront21 said:

Monotheism is intolerant by its nature. when you say there is only one god then it is intolerable to allow others to say otherwise.

Click to expand...

leopard9 said:

Pretty much this. I suppose you could have a monotheism that asserts that their god is not just the only god but all other gods are merely an aspect of the one god. That could win you some more peaceful converts.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a kind of Henotheism. Multiple gods, but one is the very highest. Cults like the roman Sol Invictus were rather henotheistic.

Btw, the first arab conquests were pretty peaceful. When they conquered Egypt they did of course slaughter the legions. But they did not forbid christianity. They even lowered the taxes for the cities. The cities welcomed this measure very much. Of course, if you liked to become a member of the new local authorities, you had to be a muslim. And so the usual opportunism started. Well, there have been worse times later, but at the beginning the Arabs have been pretty tolerant.

Looking to christianity, I guess it would develop fully differently, if it never becomes state religion and has to compromise with other strong religions. If the romans find a solution for them to co-exist in a very early stage, like the romans did with the special rules and taxes for jews, this might happen. On the other hand, christianity was always very missionary and therefore aggressive.

Couldn't you characterize the Viking raids as pagan institutional violence? Or the Mongol conquests? Just because a polytheist or syncretic religion is lighter on the theology doesn't mean it still can't be invoked to bless violence.

Polytheist 'pagans' tended to be religious tolerant, seeing other pantheons as the same as their own, merely worshipped under different names and with different rituals (this 'assimilatio' was sometimes erroneous, such as that of Lug and Wotan with Mercurius, and of Thor as Mars rather than Hercules, but it wa snot a source of religious conflict). Of course religion could occasionally have already be used as an excuse by imperialist countries, or as an additional (and highly emotive) to motivate people : the conquest of Babylonia by Assyria was a victory of Assur over Marduk, both being the dynatic / tribal major god (Ba'al) of their respective countries, but it was 'politics'. The Romans eradicated druidism in Gaul for purely political, not religious, reasons ; similarly the imperial cult was a purely political trick.
Polytheist 'pagans' tended to be all the religiously tolerant as within their own pantheon a priest-king god, a war god, a love goddess... had very different ethics, suggesting that peaceful coexistence between different worldview was possible, even 'in the nature of things'. While only 1 god = only one truth, only one 'good' way.
Yet Zoroastrianist Persians were certainly far more tolerant to the religions of conquered peoples than the Abrahamanic monotheisms.

On the other hand except for aggressive jihadism there are in modern times , no real War of Religion, i.e. fought to impose conversion. Religion is present as a part of cultural / national identity (Ireland, ex-Yugoslavia), or used as a blanket to hide the real nature of the war or gain support (Israel and the Hamas, respectively, in Gaza).

Strategos' Risk said:

Couldn't you characterize the Viking raids as pagan institutional violence? Or the Mongol conquests? Just because a polytheist or syncretic religion is lighter on the theology doesn't mean it still can't be invoked to bless violence.

Click to expand...

Sure, but wether the vikings nor the mongols started wars due to religious reasons.

The polytheistic romans always tried to integrate every religion they found in the conquered countries. Just some religions which regulary led to trouble were banned. Like the Bacchus cult or the celtic druids with a strong political background.

Also christianity was not persecuted by religious reasons initially. In the first century AD the romans just recognized, that there was always trouble with this new "jewish sect", whenever they started to discuss with jews in their synagogues. Consequently the christians became the responsibility of the praefectus urbi, who was responsible for public order and trouble-makers. And not for general civil law like the praetors.

Later they were persecuted because they refused to participate in the public cults and ceremonies. Again no religious issue. It was a clear statement, that they are not willing to be a part of the roman society and the community of a city. And this was a serious crime. Well in later centuries things became more religious between romans and christians ....

And latest with Theodosius the christians started their first crusade. At least this is what christian historians tried to glorify for centuries. They even called this idiot, who destroyed the defensability of the empire greatly, The Great. In the meantime we know, that Theodosius had perhaps rather political reasons to attack the WRE.

Dfront21 said:

Monotheism is intolerant by its nature. when you say there is only one god then it is intolerable to allow others to say otherwise.

Click to expand...

Not exactly. You just need an enviornment thats comfortable with people being wrong.

Agricola said:

Sure, but wether the vikings nor the mongols started wars due to religious reasons.

The polytheistic romans always tried to integrate every religion they found in the conquered countries. Just some religions which regulary led to trouble were banned. Like the Bacchus cult or the celtic druids with a strong political background.

Also christianity was not persecuted by religious reasons initially. In the first century AD the romans just recognized, that there was always trouble with this new "jewish sect", whenever they started to discuss with jews in their synagogues. Consequently the christians became the responsibility of the praefectus urbi, who was responsible for public order and trouble-makers. And not for general civil law like the praetors.

Later they were persecuted because they refused to participate in the public cults and ceremonies. Again no religious issue. It was a clear statement, that they are not willing to be a part of the roman society and the community of a city. And this was a serious crime. Well in later centuries things became more religious between romans and christians ....

And latest with Theodosius the christians started their first crusade. At least this is what christian historians tried to glorify for centuries. They even called this idiot, who destroyed the defensability of the empire greatly, The Great. In the meantime we know, that Theodosius had perhaps rather political reasons to attack the WRE.

Click to expand...

You're speaking as though religious and civil issues were separate. Also, Theodosius did a pretty good job, all in all.

DominusNovus said:

You're speaking as though religious and civil issues were separate. Also, Theodosius did a pretty good job, all in all.

Click to expand...

Are you sure, that Theodosius did not distinguish between religious and political reasons? I am pretty sure Constantine still did.

Regarding his good job: He greatly destroyed the roman part of the WREs army. Which had fatal consequences. The Battle of the Frigidus was probably more detrimental than Hadrianopolis to the roman empire. He also destroyed most of the roman forts in the julian alps. He let the Goths do this bloody job. So later they knew exactly, how to invade Italy without any major resistance.

Yes he reunited the empire a last time. But for how long? I call him not the Great. Just a minor emperor compared to real great emperors of the late empire like e.g. Anasthasios.

Perhaps we have a different view of roman emperors. When Mommsen, the great german historian of the 19th century was asked, why he never mentions Antoninus Pius or Trajanus, he answered: "Well, Antonius was nice, and Trajanus was brave. There is nothing more to report about these two guys". Actually I almost agree with Mommsen.

I agree that Frigidus was a painful loss to the Empire, but also think that Theodosius couldnt afford to recognize a usurper.

But for modt of history, the line bryween faith and politics was much more blurred, and it was reall during the reign of Theodosius, ironically enough, that the western notion that the two are distinct really began to pick up steam.

The Mongols were probably the most religiously tolerant overlords of their time. Yet, the desire for expansion and conquest was partly because Genghis Khan believed that Tengri willed it so. Now, it's not much theologically speaking, and it blurs the line between proto-nationalist/cultural supremacist/simple tribalist rhetoric, and the fancy religious warfare rhetoric that you get with crusades or jihads, but is it no less religious in nature? A divine mandate's a divine mandate.

Same thing with the Norse, I'm pretty sure that they weren't big fans of the Christians who had tried to convert them, and their raids were often motivated by, "let's get those Christians and their loot!"

Doesn't tribalism count as institutional violence? And if not, why does it get a pass, while Christian crusades and Islamic jihads are considered worse and more evil?

Strategos' Risk said:

The Mongols were probably the most religiously tolerant overlords of their time. Yet, the desire for expansion and conquest was partly because Genghis Khan believed that Tengri willed it so. Now, it's not much theologically speaking, and it blurs the line between proto-nationalist/cultural supremacist/simple tribalist rhetoric, and the fancy religious warfare rhetoric that you get with crusades or jihads, but is it no less religious in nature? A divine mandate's a divine mandate.

Same thing with the Norse, I'm pretty sure that they weren't big fans of the Christians who had tried to convert them, and their raids were often motivated by, "let's get those Christians and their loot!"

Doesn't tribalism count as institutional violence? And if not, why does it get a pass, while Christian crusades and Islamic jihads are considered worse and more evil?

Click to expand...

Looking at the big picture it does comes down to the old adage that 'religion is the problem' is not all that true. Religion, like any dogmatic philosophy, often exists in spite of human nature and quickly gets corrupted as a justification for conquest, enslavement, and genocide. I see little difference in such modern ideologies such as capitalism, communism, and ethnic nationalism when they were used to 'civilize' opponents just like the world's major religions have done to peoples of outsider cultures.

Sure, there are plenty of examples that can be found for a variety of oppression that are justified and originally rooted in religious belief, but it is really naive to assume the elimination of religion will somehow liberate humanity from war and bigotry, let alone a particular stripe of divinity.

It does not matter, why your city is burnt down, the men are slaughtered, the women are raped and the kids are enslaved. The result is always the same.

There are a lots of good and often multiple reasons, why people started wars in the past. If you have a closer look to the background, you almost always find more politicial power and wealth for the ruler and his family or the ruling class /clique. This is almost always part of the bundle of several reasons and motivations. Of course it is never the most communicated reason.

Look at Theodosius. He was not willing to accept the usurpation of Arbogast. He was also not willing to send his son Honorius to the WRE as a puppet king under Arbogast. But attacking the WRE is not easy to sell. Theodosius needed every support he could get. And so he did of course also blame Arbogast and Eugenius for their attempts to strengthen the pagan cults. Yes, Theodosius was most probably very pious. But I doubt, that this alone was enough to attack the WRE, the brother of the ERE.

Afterwards christian historians praised Theodosius for reuniting the empire and enforcing christianity. And they called him The Great. Obviously they took the bait.

This thread can only end well.

DominusNovus said:

I agree that Frigidus was a painful loss to the Empire, but also think that Theodosius couldnt afford to recognize a usurper.

But for modt of history, the line bryween faith and politics was much more blurred, and it was reall during the reign of Theodosius, ironically enough, that the western notion that the two are distinct really began to pick up steam.

Click to expand...

Theodosius created the usurper. Arbogast was his man in the west. When Valentinian hung himself (and there is no reason to suspect Arbogast hung him, Arbogast quite literally had nothing to gain and everything to lose from arranging his death), Theodosius basically abandoned Arbogast and asked for his head. He had very little political tact and less military skill-the latter is evidenced by his inability to defeat the Goths and his near disastrous strategy at the Frigidus.

Saw this comment yesterday and it pretty much sums up how I feel about religion and its role in institutional violence:

It's about the best tool leaders have for controlling other people into doing evil shit that fulfils the leaders secular wants, but if your average shlub had understood how important things like water rights, hard currency & territory were for the nation states they lived in, they probably could have been amped up to go kill over those too.

Click to expand...

The issue is not monotheism vs polytheism; it is missionary religion vs non-missionary religion.

The Jews, quintessential monotheists though they are, have never engaged in conquest or war with the aim of spreading the faith (at least to my knowledge, I am willing to be corrected on this). Although polytheistic nations have engaged in war to fend off competing beliefs I can't think of a case where the goal was converts to their religion (again, I welcome correction).

Tribal conflicts are also not inherently religious as war between tribes that share the same religious beliefs have been and still are common.

Christianity would have probably remained a fairly pacifist faith had it never become the state religion of Rome. That would have prevented, or severely limited, the church's ability to forcibly convert. Prelates (Christian and non) in possession of earthly power are responsible for much of history's violence.

In any case, sans the powers of the state, the influence of religion on the course of history in the middle east, Europe and eventually the Americas would have been profoundly different.

phildup said:

Christianity would have probably remained a fairly pacifist faith had it never become the state religion of Rome.

Click to expand...

Most people just see the christianisation of the roman empire. What people often underestimate is the romanisation of christianity. Christianity changed massively, once it became state religion.