2010
(I am taking the time to respond at length to the objections of a commenter identified as “Scholar” – please see my previous post, “The Myopic Christian” for the background – Hrafnkell)
In response to this post, one could equally well write another called “The Myopic Polytheist”. It takes a certain kind of blindness of history and human nature to even suggest that all Christians (and-it seems-only Christians) are intolerant to all other religious forms.
In fairness, I have never said all Christians (or only Christians) are intolerant. This is, however, a response I get frequently. I should be used by now to having words put in my mouth but it still grates. If you are going to accuse me of something, please do me the courtesy of accusing me over something I did say, and not something you imagined or pretend I said.
Indeed, I carefully cite my sources when I write – if it is an opinion piece you will see that it is categorized as such – but even then I do not simply make things up. I carefully research and I speak from three decades of experience as a polytheist and before that an upbringing as a Lutheran (ELCA) – from birth to age 22.
You choose one particular form of religious fanaticism-this one in a Christian guise-and extend it to an entire religion. This is the same tactic that fanatics and blind people of all religious/political/etc. ideologies use.
I do not know if you are talking about this single post or a series of posts or articles by me when you say this. With regards to the former, I spoke specifically of Mr. Douthat and those who think like him – there was no blanket condemnation of Christians made or implied.
In the latter case, I have made abundantly clear my own opinion of Christianity in general – that it is, as I said, “the solution for a problem that does not exist.” I won’t go into all of my arguments here in this limited context – you are welcome to search my blog for the relevant posts. Suffice it to say, I do not think highly of Christianity and I think it offers nothing that has not already been offered in one form or another (and without the accompanying levels of intolerance).
As for specific Christians and/or groups of Christians, I identify these when addressing the topic in question. You might look specifically at my “Christianity As a Hate Group” (parts I and II) in this regard.
Finally, Christianity’s history of intolerance speaks for itself. I recommend you visit this page and provide me with a like page of Paganism’s intolerance: The Genocide of Polytheism (4th to 9th Centuries CE)
I know plenty of Christians who find to be abhorrent precisely the same things which are disgusting you (and me for that matter) and who are absolutely welcoming and tolerant of other religions.
I have made abundantly clear in previous posts that I do not consider all Christians the same. My family back in Minnesota is Christian and most of my friends have been Christian. Again, you are putting words in my mouth and then condemning them.
The group which you refer to as Christians are neither good Christians nor the norm amongst Christians.
I’m sorry, but this won’t do. This is an old excuse and I’m quite frankly tired of seeing it trotted out. The crimes committed by Christianity since the fourth century cannot be wished away by simply waving a magic wand and pronouncing that none of those criminals were Christians or by claiming that they were not good Christians or not the norm. They were, and it can be argued that they were doing precisely what Christianity demands of them (think back to that nasty “Great Commission” put into Jesus’ mouth). Catholics and Protestants both have been guilty of terrible crimes – genocide, ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide…the list is quite long and there is plenty of blame to go around. And all too often their behavior was the norm. As recently as colonial America – shortly before the Revolution, Christians were doing all sorts of nasty things – and they all considered it “the norm” – as they indeed should when the entire colony in question is composed of like-minded Christians.
You would do well to get to know the fear and frustration that these fanatics are experiencing and which are shaping their narrow-minded perspective: namely, they dream of religious, political and economic ideals which are mutually contradictory and, since they are unable to confront these contradictions, they need to find scapegoats.
There are many reasons these people are acting like they do. Part of it is their religious tradition – and monotheism itself, which is generally intolerant by its very nature. By pretending to have sole possession of some capital-T truth, everyone else gets labeled the “other.” I recommend the writings of Jan Assmann in this regard, among others – Moses the Egyptian (Harvard University Press, 1997) is a good place to start.
If you go back to the “Old” Testament to which nearly all Christians treat as scripture, and the terrible crimes portrayed there…you can see where it all begins. The entire “Old” Testament is an anti-Pagan diatribe, a rejection of everything polytheism holds dear. Jesus was no more tolerant even if he did not slaughter people. He considered Gentiles (that’s you AND me) to be swine, a typical attitude of his time. The promise of both Judaism AND Christianity (the end-time scenario) calls for all nonbelievers to be eradicated in genocide such as the world has never known. Anyone who believes this (or wants it) is guilty of intolerance and much else besides.
It would be more instructive to look to these factors rather than to the religion itself for the source of this fanatical response.
As I said above, there are many reasons for the fanatical response – including simple reaction to increasing marginalization and a sense of disenfranchisement by the white, uneducated or poorly educated base that see their days of privilege coming to an end. But the basis of the religion itself is also at fault, as I also pointed out above. To simply ignore these reasons, or to pretend they aren’t relevant, is absurd.
Christianity, properly understood and practiced is perfectly capable of intolerance, just as it capable of the most horrible intolerance when infused with human egoism. I suggest that the same dual possibilities exist for all religions practiced by human beings – it would be absurd to think that polytheists and followers of other religious traditions are incapable of tolerance. If you do not recognize this, then I suggest you consider your own tradition a little more closely.
I included a link above which lists acts of Christian intolerance for just five centuries. It is quite lengthy – and also quite incomplete. I’m sorry to disabuse you of your notions, but you won’t find any such list of polytheistic intolerance. As Jan Assmann says, polytheism was a means of translation between cultures, an ecumene of nations. It translated across cultural barriers. Monotheism (all monotheisms) builds barriers. And everyone outside of that particular monotheism becomes the “other.” People fought for a lot of reasons in the polytheistic world, but they did not have crusades, inquisitions and wholesale genocide of peoples on religious grounds. And contrary to popularly-held belief, the Pagan Roman government did not persecute Christians. The only real episode that can be identified historically is that of Diocletian’s reign and we have no idea what transpired, or why it transpired, because all our sources are biased (i.e. Christian).
I suggest that you study history a little more closer before you proceed.
We can argue about what intolerance is and what forms it takes, but polytheistic governments did not care what gods were worshiped. All gods existed; there was no “my god is better than your god” or “your god doesn’t exist” or “I’m going force you to believe in my god.” The Romans might have thought Egyptian polytheism was ridiculous but you will notice they never tried to exterminate it. You can’t make this claim about Christianity – which did exterminate it (and Roman religion too).
And keep in mind that many of these horrible people are Saints today. Keep in mind also that anti-Paganism is just as present in the New Testament as the Old and is trumpeted from pulpits across the world every Sunday (and nobody bats an eye or objects – none did in my old church or in any other I’ve heard of).
A multitude of polytheistic religions existed in the ancient world and nobody was trying to exterminate all others. Sadly, you can’t make this claim about Christianity, which is still trying to change the religion of others even today. Do you know any churches that don’t support missionary activity, or who take objection to such activity? It’s cultural genocide, pure and simple. Proselyting ought to be illegal.
As for Islam and Judaism, I discuss these when and where appropriate. By no means are other forms of monotheism innocent. But rest assured, monotheism is the problem, and polytheism is the answer to a question that does exist. Because true religion is religion that works – for those who follow it. There my truth is found, not in some pretense of universalism.
Interesting that you mention Assmann.
I haven’t read Moses the Egyptian but I intend to… I just started reading The Mosaic Distinction. (Maybe better to read Moses the Egyptian first?)
His theory about the cultural translation being achieved through religion, i.e. polytheism, is a rather persuasive argument.
No historical event comes to my mind, in which a polytheistic culture intentionally destroyed another’s religion. I could be missing it somewhere though… On the other hand, it can be stated that syncretism was rampant in ancient history.
Christianity is no stranger to this either. It was and is still being used to influence and support Christianity’s purposes. The Catholic saints usually (not always) tend to have been the replacement for local deities.
In addition to the deities, “holidays” were also assimilated. You point this out well in your article about Christmas. (I do not like that word, I prefer Yule.)
From the beginning, the Church realized the only way to convert the masses was to let them keep their habits and rituals. They didn’t want to reinvent the wheel… and yes, as you stated above everything Christianity had to offer was already available. What’s the saying? If you can’t beat them, join them. Pun intended.
Sydryd
Sydryd, thanks for commenting. The article “The Mosaic Distinction” is a shorter version of “Moses the Egyptian” – he touches upon the same basic ideas but in much less depth. It can’t hurt to read the article first. The book gets pretty thick – dealing with the conception of Egypt throughout Western culture so there is a lot more food for thought there.
Syncretism is absolutely a part of the ancient religious landscape; no religion is free of it. And I don’t think this makes a religion – including Christianity – less.
But what Christianity has done is taken all these bits and pieces – from Judaism, from “mystery religions” and so on and put them all together (along with ancient ideas of morality, ethics, etc) and called them something new with the pretense that it invented these things – and then replaced everything it stole – through force.
The pope (Truth and Tolerance, 2004) tries to make an argument against Assmann but without success.
Perhaps the polytheistic “intolerance” of which Scholar speaks is the Romans ban on the practice of human sacrifice as part of the war on the Gauls, and their persecution of the Druids as part of their political assimilation of the region. Or the Saami/Finnish habit of taking your tribal neighbor’s top god and making him your tribe’s uber-demon. But probably not, since s/he seems more about defending Christianity than critical engagement with how polytheists interact(ed) with each other (and with monotheists). Pity. If we’re going to get a lecture on how our “tradition” (as if there is only one) behaves, I’d expect to see some examples.
Re: Christian persecution under Rome… I am dimly recalling a Christianizing of the Roman Empire class in my undergraduate years, and a book which posited that the “persecution” stemmed from Christianity’s unwillingness to participate in the state religious festivals, which required no particular belief but did require form. I thought that was a rather pat answer, though, since the Jews (of which Christianity was considered a radical new sect, but nothing unique) were tolerated and they didn’t participate in pagan practices, either. What the Romans did not tolerate well was insurrection and rebellion, and they were cheerfully even-handed about squashing those, regardless of how many gods you worshiped–so I suspect the Christians were somehow conceived of as rebelling in some fashion. (This is one of those times I wish I’d kept all my books from college.)
You wrote “I spoke specifically of Mr. Douthat and those who think like him – there was no blanket condemnation of Christians made or implied” and “As for specific Christians and/or groups of Christians, I identify these when addressing the topic in question”. You ought to read your post again because you have not identified specific groups of Christians in your post; you write about one particular Christian and then proceed to speak of “Christians” as though to imply a unity. You do, indeed – in the post that I commented on – imply that Christians as a whole are intolerant.
You wrote “Indeed, I carefully cite my sources when I write”. I missed the source that you cited when you proclaimed what “Christians” would say and that “Christians” initiate conversations about religion. Nowhere did you say that you were writing only about Christians who think like Mr. Douthat.
You wrote “I’m sorry, but this won’t do. This is an old excuse and I’m quite frankly tired of seeing it trotted out. The crimes committed by Christianity since the fourth century cannot be wished away by simply waving a magic wand…” Indeed, this won’t do – I did not say (and here you are putting words in my mouth) that Christians have not committed atrocities. Clearly they have. No need to elaborate. I was referring to Christians now, not Christians then. (But I think that you have difficulty differentiating…).
You wrote “you won’t find any such list of polytheistic intolerance”. Wrong and wrong. There is plenty of indication of Roman intolerance (despite your careful waving away of it with the magic wand of “Christian bias”). Read Josephus for some of the description of Roman treatment of the “Other”. Consider the Chanadala and associated groups trampeled by Hindu society… I am sure that if you were interested in having a real ecumenical view you would investigate the dark sides of polytheism as well.
But, it is clear that you are a thirty year reactionary against a bad experience from your youth. This is clear when you write “I speak from three decades of experience as a polytheist and before that an upbringing as a Lutheran (ELCA) – from birth to age 22″. You throw this out as some kind of claim for authority about what you are saying – and it is a common trope used by reactionaries against religions – but being raised in a tradition is no guarantee of sufficient knowledge of it. Perhaps you have sufficient knowledge, maybe you have studied Lutheran theology in depth – I don’t know; what I do know is that the claim which you make carries little weight.
Don’t get me wrong – I am not interested only in defending Christianity. I am defending it here because you are attacking it with rather specious arguments. If you were attacking polytheism, I would be defending that. But, in your rebellion against your previous religious tradition (which was no doubt thrust upon you authoritatively) you craft your own Other against which you demonstrate very little tolerance. You contradict your own claims for polytheism.
I would think that a real ecumenical position would seek to rehabilitate all religious positions to be tolerant of the Other rather than seek to brand some inherently and irremediably intolerant and therefore not worthy of regard.
But you have already crafted your own vision of Christianity and have declared it to be the only viable one (and you make use of similarly ideological representations) and thus you cannot take into account any nuance that can be legitimately read in Christian scriptures.
I am sure that if you read any polytheistic writings the way that you read Christian writings you would find intolerance of Others (whether or not these Others are differentiated according to religious view or according to some other criteria).
I would like you to prove that all polytheisms have been perfectly tolerant to all Others. After all, your silence suggests that you deny my claim that polytheists do not escape the dark, intolerant side of human nature.
Actually, here are a couple more examples of intolerance by polytheists:
1) The Romans’ professed abhorrence of certain Carthaginian customs as further justification for war with Carthage.
2) Alexander’s abhorrence of certain religious customs practiced by the peoples he conquered in the lands now called Afghanistan and Pakistan.
There are no doubt a great many others but, unfortunately, I had to leave my library behind when moved overseas – i.e., I don’t have immediate access to all of the primary witnesses (most of which are not Christian). But please, look up some of them – the primary sources I mean; I would hate for my own understanding of history to be based solely on modern interpreters.
cinnabari, you are right. What was of utmost importance to a Roman governor was the “quies provinciae” – the peace of the province. To the extent any Christians were persecuted at all it was under existing civil laws, and as Origen says in the mid-third century, they were very few in number and easily named. No mention of persecution. Jesus himself threatened the peace of the province. The so-called empire-wide persecution of Decius was not a persecution at all – it was an empire wide demand for a show of loyalty in a very troubled time. And it applied to everyone, not simply Christians.
And how can you separate the civil from the religious in the Roman Empire when the Emperor was simultaneously the Pontifex Maximus?
And why did groups of Christians, Jews, members of various pagan cults stir up rebellion? Did they really or was this a Roman bias.
You read history one way and one way only. You have no grasp of the intricacies of Roman history. You can agree all you like with other posters, but that doesn’t lend any credibility to your biased arguments.
Good luck with your intolerant war against intolerance.
The emperor was the Pontifex Maximus. He was not the Pope. You seem to have the idea that Roman religion should be understood like Catholicism. You’ll have to do some studying, because you’re comparing apples and oranges.
Back in the day, you could not separate religion from politics. But it wasn’t a problem, because there was no monotheism – all gods existed. It didn’t matter if the Emperor worshiped Jupiter and that a subject worshiped Baal. Please advance an argument.
Messianism – apocalypticism – is why the Jews stirred up rebellion – and the first Christians were Jews. If you want some Christian examples, read Revelation and other works from the second century.
You are the one lacking a grasp of the intricacies of Roman history. And yu have yet to offer one shred of proof, one bit of evidence, even one single citation, in support of your arguments. This is so very typical of the Christians who come here to argue with me. Honestly, I think I need to make a rule here that if you can’t argue a cogent argument, I won’t even bother replying, because you’re really insulting my intelligence at this point.
Please do make a cogent argument, or don’t bother.