andrewcriddle

Hi Ben



One problem is that most people persecuted for their beliefs seem to have only become at risk of harsh treatment when they refused to return to the staus quo when required to do so by the authorities. People who quietly held unconventional views and recanted when the authorities informed them that their beliefs were unacceptable, were unlikely to suffer anything much.

But a refusal to recant, in these circumstances, implies a disbelief in the right of the authorities concerned to tell one what to think and hence such stubborn heretics are in a sense being persecuted for what they deny/doubt.

On the one hand this supports the position that persecution is for doubt rather than belief, but risks doing so by making the position true almost by definition.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Good point, Andrew, but I would argue that the threat of persecution if one does not recant is itself persecution. If a regime is threatening its subjects with punishment unless they toe the party line, I would not let that regime get away with a claim that nobody was persecuted or oppressed just because everybody threatened so far has recanted. The threat itself is oppression or persecution, to my way of thinking.

There are two kinds of people who might recant under threat. First, those who did not realize that their beliefs or nonbeliefs were illegal. Second, those who did realize it but did not bother changing anything until the actual threat was mounted. On your view, but with my slight modification, the second kind of person is, as you say, virtually by definition doubting the authority of the state to dictate such matters.

Ben.

ynquirer

Not only did Roman Catholics burn Jan Hus at the stake. Also Calvinists burnt Michael Servetus – a Spaniard – in Geneva. And English Churchmen burnt Jean of Arc, their coreligionist, under the charge of witchcraft. It seems to me that love of persecution is buried very deep in the human heart.

Why does the lion hunt down the gazelle? Because the gazelle is not a lion? Rather, because the lion’s genome tells it to kill weaker animals, whether gazelles, gnus, or baby lions. The natural purpose is, of course, feeding. Yet, the genome is there after the necessity is over, as happens with human beings. Persecution is the outcome of the predatory instincts of humans.

What about religious persecution, in particular? Men of religion – sorry, the gender bias here is unavoidable for most of history – have been entrusted with the noble task to refrain the predatory instincts of humankind. And I think there is a good score of success in reference to this task, especially in the dark times of the High Middle Ages. However, men of religion are human, after all. Predatory instincts are present in them no less than in lay people. Whenever the long-suppressed predatory instinct of these men has spilled over, they have found only one field to set it loose: religion itself.

Therefore, religion is a battlefield on which predatory instincts of men of religion may be given unrestricted freedom. Yet, what is the substance of such a battle – doubt or positive belief? One would hardly separate one from the other, but if I have to take a position I would say: Men of religion must not clash like ordinary predators; they must in any event behave like the compassionate men they are committed to be. Therefore, doubt is not the substance for a religious clash, since doubt is human. It is positive belief what must be fought. And for a good reason: by fighting positive belief, men of religion work – in their concept – a good for the persecuted, as he or she is led to the real truth (of which, of course, they will have doubts, like the human beings they are). This is the reason why simple doubts are dealt with by means of prayers and/or sacrifices, but not actual persecution. It is the positive belief what must be uprooted, for the sake of generosity of the persecuting agents.

steve_bnk

Onward Chsristian Soldioers

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

Battle Hym Of The Rpiublic

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.

I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.

Militant is as militant does...

storytime

I would think that Christianity was novel as you said, but the novelty seen by Jews as being blasphemy, and blasphemy as a threat to their recognized tradition by Rome. This new branch of Judaism, iow's, lent itself to freedom from Jewish laws of sabbath keeping, dietary requirements, animal sacrifices, power of the Pharisee priesthood[Sanhedrin(?)], slavery, and demished the power and control that the "old" Jews were accustomed to and that Rome recognized as Jewish. The new Jewish sect was in fact, considered by the old traditional Jews, as an illegal sect[cult] within Judaism, not outside it. For which the old Jews protested against and sought support for its removal by Roman rulers. For example, the old Jews in upholding their standard of Judaism declared "let his blood be upon us", for it was their right as Jews, as it was commanded in their laws to execute any Jew who spoke against God. And they evidently reasoned Jesus as speaking blasphemies, and touching the priesthood power that existed. To the Jews, Jewish law said Jesus was guilty and deserved death. To the Romans, Jesus was not guilty of anything under their Roman laws.

andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

The problem I have with this is that it is IMO common for regimes to formally ban views they disapprove of as a semi-symbolic act. As a consequence those who blatantly and publicly violate the ban will potentially face penalties. I don't see any reason why these oppressive measures should not be regarded as a genuine result of dislike of the prohibited views.

What I thought you meant by persecution was the serious attempt to track down and sanction people holding forbidden views, where I tend to agree with you that such attempts arise from concerns other than the content of the persecuted views.

If you are arguing that even largely unenforced laws prohibiting unpopular views are usually not really about the content of the prohibited views then I don't think I agree.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Would the druids fit the bill? I'm not sure how many were killed, but the religion was abolished, according to Suetonius in Claudius:

http://www.princeton.edu/~champlin/cla219/csuet.htm

Ben C Smith

They very well might. Indeed, thinking about what Andrew has written and some of the other examples that have come up, I am beginning to think my principle does not hold as a rule across the board.

In thinking about modern China, for example, IIUC, most if not all religions are banned in principle. The good chairman wanted China to be a truly religionless state. So in this case the powers that be are taking the negative side (no religion), and it is the positive religious content (any religious content) of the various faiths that is being banned. Toto gave the parallel example of Communism, which seems to have followed the same pattern in western countries (even if not technically a religion). And your druids seem to be similar (though I should like to know whether it was the reputed use of human sacrifice alone that made the Romans declare their faith illegal, or whether there were other, more strictly belief-oriented aspects, too).

In the case of the Romans and the Christians, it was the opposite. The Romans took the positive side (you have to respect the emperor cult), while the Christians took the negative (no!).

Let me mention briefly what started me thinking about all this. I was reading James A. Haught, 2000 Years of Disbelief (or via: amazon.co.uk), and was struck anew by how many Enlightenment thinkers lost jobs or social opportunities or worse becaue they were slurred as atheists, even if they were deists or Unitarians or they subscribed to other unorthodox but theistic views. This reminded me of the martyrdom of Polycarp, whom the crowd was calling an atheist, even though he apparently believed in the Judeo-Christian God. It occurred to me that the a- in atheist was not being used in either casse to imply rejection of all gods of all kinds, but rather to imply rejection of the god(s) deemed most important to the persecutor(s). Hence this thread.

So, to my mind, what the early Christians, many medieval heretics, and the Enlightenment rationalists share in common is that they were persecuted for their doubt (or, to take the advice offered by Amaleq13, for their rejection and denial of some tenet of faith held dear by their persecutors), not for any actual, positive doctrinal point of their own. However, this thread has also served its purpose in reminding me that the other kind of persecution does exist, as well.

(I should add that I see both kinds, indeed all kinds, of such persecution as heinous. The distinction I am making is conceptual, not ethical.)

avi

I am no expert, as you know, Ben, but I guess that summary of yours is slightly inaccurate:


From the perspective of the "true believers", i.e. those who accepted the local Greek traditional "pagan" customs and practices, a person interfering with those customs by attempting to convert ordinary citizens to a sect of Judaism, could be viewed as a traitor.

Is this different from the situation in most countries, where the populace threatens, intimidates, or discriminates against those whose thinking is at variance with the majority?

hehe, even on this forum!!!
:Cheeky:

Ben C Smith

The Three Self Movement (for Protestants) and the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association (for Catholics) are officially available. But they are strictly regulated. Try to be an independent Christian (or any kind of religious person, I think), and you can get into trouble.

Ben.