Yahoo, religion and the web(sahay.co)
sahay.co
Yahoo, religion and the web
http://sahay.co/post/27542376285/yahoo-religion-and-the-web
8 comments
Actually, romans were usually tolerant of other religions. Yes, some religions were persecuted, but that was usually due to political reasons. Many (most?) christians were persecuted not for not following official religion but for creating unrest and speaking against Rome.
By far the most extreme christian persecution was by Diocletian. His hatred for christians began when fortune tellers, and priests of the Oracle of Apollo told him they couldn't predict the future because of the influence of Christians--definitely a religious rather than political reason.
>creating unrest and speaking against Rome
Those were the charges leveled against them (many times falsely) primarily by their fellow pagan citizens who were motivated by religious intolerance not political concern.
Most of the time the state wouldn't have persecuted the Christians had not the people demanded it.
The Romans also had a history of banning religious cults before the rise of Christianity.
>creating unrest and speaking against Rome
Those were the charges leveled against them (many times falsely) primarily by their fellow pagan citizens who were motivated by religious intolerance not political concern.
Most of the time the state wouldn't have persecuted the Christians had not the people demanded it.
The Romans also had a history of banning religious cults before the rise of Christianity.
You're wrong. Religion in antiquity was different. It was our first attempt at philosophy, even though many of the best Greek thinkers stopped believing as they slowly built their own sphere of knowledge as a real form of (natural) philosophy. As to your example, the Roman era: religion is, of course, a great way to justify an absolutist regime. Why is someone king? Because god wants it. This is one of the reasons why the surviving monarchies are still strongly tied to religion. They receive (in part) both their legitimacy and mission from the idea that they have a divine task as the monarch. It can be a great political tool in general, too, as anyone who is following American politics can confirm. The Romans were actually relatively tolerant, but there were limits. The problem with Christianity was that the early Christians were a rabble-rousing sect that was creating problems for the empire. Their claims were not only farfetched from the viewpoint of a Roman aristocrat, but also challenged the Roman way of life. Ironically, they marketed their faith to slaves, offering them the hope of a better life after death despite the numerous calls for slavery in particularly the old testament[0]. Despite the whole "render unto Caesar" story, they also refused to recognize the "divinity" of the emperor [1]. This wasn't a problem per se. You could be critical of the divinity of the Caesars privately, but the Christian sect went too far in their zeal in their almost revolutionary and anarchistic spirit. Remember, Jesus preached that (assuming the sources we have are historically accurate on this point) the world was going to end. Most probably in the lifetime of his early followers ("Take therefore no thought of the morrow [...]", Matthew 6:34). Jesus is just the only one we remember from a long line of fanatical, rabble-rousing preachers from Palestine[2] that created problems for the Romans by instigating revolts.
The Roman ruling class objected to Christianity because of its politics, not because it wasn't the "state religion". It absorbed many other cults (e.g. Serapis, Isis, Mithras, see the Wikipedia article on "Religion in Ancient Rome"[3]).
Of course, intolerance goes hand in hand with religious fanaticism in any time, but the monotheistic religions are inherently more intolerant because of their rejection of anything other than their singular god. For the Romans, religion wasn't necessarily a fanatical pursuit, but a way to honor their ancestors and part of their politics. They were open to new religious ideas, as long as it didn't mock their way of life, and often adopted foreign cults as their own. In a way, very much alike to many modern believers, who take a little bit of everything in order to create their own, vague interpretation of spirituality.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
[1]: The divinity of the emperor was a complicated subject that can't really be compared to current religious worship in monotheism. Unlike the uneducated impression I have of Japan, for example, virtually no Romans actually believed that the emperor was a god in the modern sense of the word. It was mostly a honorific title, going back to Alexander the Great who was the first in a line of Greek/Roman rulers to explicitly compare himself with a mythical figure (Heracles in his case, who was not a god). In terms of absolute power over a major part of the human population at the time, however, the Roman emperor (and his Chinese equivalent) were almost like gods.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants.
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome
The Roman ruling class objected to Christianity because of its politics, not because it wasn't the "state religion". It absorbed many other cults (e.g. Serapis, Isis, Mithras, see the Wikipedia article on "Religion in Ancient Rome"[3]).
Of course, intolerance goes hand in hand with religious fanaticism in any time, but the monotheistic religions are inherently more intolerant because of their rejection of anything other than their singular god. For the Romans, religion wasn't necessarily a fanatical pursuit, but a way to honor their ancestors and part of their politics. They were open to new religious ideas, as long as it didn't mock their way of life, and often adopted foreign cults as their own. In a way, very much alike to many modern believers, who take a little bit of everything in order to create their own, vague interpretation of spirituality.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
[1]: The divinity of the emperor was a complicated subject that can't really be compared to current religious worship in monotheism. Unlike the uneducated impression I have of Japan, for example, virtually no Romans actually believed that the emperor was a god in the modern sense of the word. It was mostly a honorific title, going back to Alexander the Great who was the first in a line of Greek/Roman rulers to explicitly compare himself with a mythical figure (Heracles in his case, who was not a god). In terms of absolute power over a major part of the human population at the time, however, the Roman emperor (and his Chinese equivalent) were almost like gods.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants.
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome
I agree that some rulers of ancient Rome attacked christianity in part because they feared it threatened their political power (not the case for Diocletian as I'll explain later). But if you'll look throughout the history of religious persecution in western monotheistic societies, you'll notice that most of state sponsored persecution was motivated by the same thing--not some newly minted religious zeal sparked by monotheism, but good old fashioned political considerations.
However Roman society in general did persecute the Christians because of their differing religious beliefs. There are numerous accounts of pagan mobs composed of ordinary citizens attacking early Christians. The everyday pagans didn't form mobs because they were worried about the instability of the political regime, but because Christianity challenged their core beliefs--the very definition of religious intolerance. In addition much of the persecution by the Roman state was carried out because it was demanded by the people, not the rulers--motivated by religious intolerance.
>It absorbed many other cults
You'll also note that the Dionysian mystery cult was banned by the state for almost 200 years before they absorbed it, and other cults were banned before it.
> For the Romans, religion wasn't necessarily a fanatical pursuit
That is completely untrue, sure there were Romans who were only half hearted about religion just as there are less enthusiastic practitioners in a monotheistic religion. But if you think religion wasn't a fanatical pursuit for the Romans you need to read more on the initiation rituals of the mystery cults.
Additionally the particular sadism with which Christians were met speaks directly to the fanaticism of their persecutors. Diocletian (who institutionalize Christian persecution) developed a hatred for christians because pagan fortune tellers told him they could no longer divine the outcome of battles due to Christian influence, and he began his full-scale persecution when priests of the Oracle of Apollo told him they too could no longer divine the future because of the influence of Christians.
The most severe Christian persecution of the Roman Empire was directly caused by religious fanaticism.
> monotheistic religions are inherently more intolerant because of their rejection of anything other than their singular god.
Polytheism didn't make the Romans inherently more tolerant. They added gods to their pantheon, but only after those gods were thoroughly Romanized. In short they were only tolerant of religion that was very similar to what already existed allowing for slight variation along the way.
How is adding a new god, who has been modified to fit your pantheon, any more tolerant than early Christians who adopted certain customs and dates from pagan celebrations?
Person A believes in a single all encompassing God and will not allow to worship any other. However he will make some concessions by adding a new feast day on the day you traditional celebrate your god and will incorporate some elements of your festival into it.
Person B believes in 20 gods with different spheres of influence. He will let you worship any other god so long as you change it so that it is nearly indistinguishable from his existing pantheon, and thus no longer really the god you worship.
How is person B inherently more tolerant?
However Roman society in general did persecute the Christians because of their differing religious beliefs. There are numerous accounts of pagan mobs composed of ordinary citizens attacking early Christians. The everyday pagans didn't form mobs because they were worried about the instability of the political regime, but because Christianity challenged their core beliefs--the very definition of religious intolerance. In addition much of the persecution by the Roman state was carried out because it was demanded by the people, not the rulers--motivated by religious intolerance.
>It absorbed many other cults
You'll also note that the Dionysian mystery cult was banned by the state for almost 200 years before they absorbed it, and other cults were banned before it.
> For the Romans, religion wasn't necessarily a fanatical pursuit
That is completely untrue, sure there were Romans who were only half hearted about religion just as there are less enthusiastic practitioners in a monotheistic religion. But if you think religion wasn't a fanatical pursuit for the Romans you need to read more on the initiation rituals of the mystery cults.
Additionally the particular sadism with which Christians were met speaks directly to the fanaticism of their persecutors. Diocletian (who institutionalize Christian persecution) developed a hatred for christians because pagan fortune tellers told him they could no longer divine the outcome of battles due to Christian influence, and he began his full-scale persecution when priests of the Oracle of Apollo told him they too could no longer divine the future because of the influence of Christians.
The most severe Christian persecution of the Roman Empire was directly caused by religious fanaticism.
> monotheistic religions are inherently more intolerant because of their rejection of anything other than their singular god.
Polytheism didn't make the Romans inherently more tolerant. They added gods to their pantheon, but only after those gods were thoroughly Romanized. In short they were only tolerant of religion that was very similar to what already existed allowing for slight variation along the way.
How is adding a new god, who has been modified to fit your pantheon, any more tolerant than early Christians who adopted certain customs and dates from pagan celebrations?
Person A believes in a single all encompassing God and will not allow to worship any other. However he will make some concessions by adding a new feast day on the day you traditional celebrate your god and will incorporate some elements of your festival into it.
Person B believes in 20 gods with different spheres of influence. He will let you worship any other god so long as you change it so that it is nearly indistinguishable from his existing pantheon, and thus no longer really the god you worship.
How is person B inherently more tolerant?
Setting up a huge collection of straw men (all geeks are fanboyz), and then beating your own chest at not being one of them. Seriously?
While I think the monotheists are the most outspoken (and easier to get behind), I don't know whether the overall point is true. Continuing the purely anecdotal style of the OP: I know a lot of people that might fall into the monotheist camp at first glance, but once you start talking, it really isn't true. In my circles, I can quickly name the following configurations:
* The all-out Mac/IPhone user that is constantly eying for B2G and some Linux desktops to finally hit the point where he wants to switch. * IPhone users complaining that Windows Phone hasn't taken off. * Windows users using OS X at work and being pleased by both...
I could go on and on. Once you start talking to all of those people, they will happily admit many advantages and flaws of their platforms. The problem is that once you picked one, people automatically assume that you dislike the other. You won't talk much about the nice little things of a platform that you don't use on a daily basis.
* The all-out Mac/IPhone user that is constantly eying for B2G and some Linux desktops to finally hit the point where he wants to switch. * IPhone users complaining that Windows Phone hasn't taken off. * Windows users using OS X at work and being pleased by both...
I could go on and on. Once you start talking to all of those people, they will happily admit many advantages and flaws of their platforms. The problem is that once you picked one, people automatically assume that you dislike the other. You won't talk much about the nice little things of a platform that you don't use on a daily basis.
I couldn't agree more. I remember talking to a senior exec (acquired as part of a startup buyout) at a previous job and he stressed that there's always room under the big contenders (in areas they can't or don't care about) in any market until you begin to chip away at their market share and become one yourself. In an ideal world, I guess. Good post.
I really do want to be a Yahoo! fanboy too. Wish they would improve Flickr before I migrate to 500px.
I really do want to be a Yahoo! fanboy too. Wish they would improve Flickr before I migrate to 500px.
I think it's easy not to be a fanboy. But it's hard not to be a hater, especially when it comes to the likes of MS (or what it used to be) and the modern-day Apple.
I read through this entire article and came to the conclusion: this can be summed up into a tweet.
What is the point of this article? People should see the good in all things, not just things they're predisposed to like? Well, okay, but I that's fairly obvious. There's a reason the term 'fanboy' is never used in a positive way.
Let's be honest. There's no such thing as a Yahoo fanboy.
This is a myth caused by an appeal to common sense that is not supported by the evidence. Let's take Roman society as an example. They may have had plenty of gods to worship, but there was an official state religion with compulsory worship, and they were hardly tolerant of deviation (see the ancient Christians for examples).