Ben C Smith

I am going to make a statement that may or may not be controversial, and hope that people will make genuine attempts to find exceptions to it. The statement is:

By and large, those persecuted in history, if the persecution had anything to do with faith (religion), have been persecuted, not for what they believed, but rather for what they doubted.

Case in point, the Romans and the Christians. It appears to me that the Romans persecuted Christians, not because they believed in Christ per se, but rather because they did not believe in the Roman pantheon and in the Caesar cult; hence the frequent charges of atheism (Christians were atheistic to the gods that mattered most to the Romans). Later on, Christians persecuted other Christians for not believing, for example, in the trinity. I also think of Enlightenment thinkers much, much later who were accused of atheism, even if they were deists or Unitarians. Again, the issue was that they disbelieved in the Judeo-Christian God that mattered to their persecutors.

Are there blatant exceptions to this idea in history? People who were persecuted because of the contents of their beliefs alone, not because they rejected what the persecutor wanted them to accept? If there are, who are they, and how many are there?

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

Toto

The first people I think of who were persecuted for a positive belief are the Communists who were denied jobs because they believed (positively) in Communism.

I think in most cases people are persecuted for their perceived lack of loyalty to the group, whatever form that takes.

mountainman

That's a big IF. Persecutions are more generally today described
in terms of profane political history --- not by a "religious history".
Religious connotations are often attributed after the event.

Literary "evidence" manufactured by the political victors
which cannot be corroborated in the field of profane ancient
history should be set to the side until corroborated.


Can we distinguish "the contents of their political beliefs" and "the contents of their religious beliefs"?
Plato's republic might be the place to start.

DCHindley

Ben,

It seems to me that it is much more likely that all "persecutions" are based on what one does not believe, or simply what one is not.

National Socialists hated Jews (Poles, Slavs, Brits, Frenchies, Gypsies, etc) because they were NOT "Aryans" as they defined the term.

In WWI, the Jehovah's Witnesses were "persecuted" (jailed) not because they were conscientious objectors, but because they were not "patriotic Americans" as defined by the authorities.

Tutsis were hunted down and killed by extremist Hutus in Rwanda because they were not Hutus. Even moderate Hutus were hunted down and killed because they were not "real" Hutus as defined by the extremists.

In the US, the extreme right wing of the Republican party wants to push out moderates like Colin Powell not because these believe they can accommodate gays or work with Democrats, but because they don't believe Barack Obama is an illegal-alien crypto Muslim terrorist bent on destroying the nation's traditional and God-blessed-forever white male power base.

There really may not be any functional difference between persecution FOR specific non-approved beliefs and FOR NOT having specific approved beliefs.

On the flip side, Stalin persecuted many dedicated Socialists and Communists not because they were Mensheviki or Social Revolutionaries but because they were perceived as threats to him and his power base (i.e., were to independent thinking or potential political rivals).

However, Christians of the 2nd century CE do not appear to me to have been any serious threat to Hadrian's power. Would Stalin have persecuted bakers for baking rye bread rather than wheat? Not unless he perceived of rye baking bakers as threats.

Whatever the self-designation "Christian" represented to Pliny the Younger and Hadrian, it was alone enough to arouse suspicion of a threat. Pliny asked, quite naturally, what exactly made "Christians" as he encountered them actual threats. He felt they were nothing more than a voluntary association based on a superstitious eastern religion, and the threat removed by reasoning with them to repent of their superstition and show they were truly loyal.

Only the most stubborn should be led "to punishment," on the basis that these may have still harbored subversive ideas. Hadrian agreed.

DCH

Ben C Smith

I think plenty of ancient and medieval martyrs went up in flames because they did not believe in God in precisely the same way the authorities did. No doubt politics were involved, as well, but the reason given before the execution (not merely afterward as some sort of justification) was often religious.

True. But inapplicable to the example I gave. (Not going there on this thread, Pete.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Your second option (what one is not) is, strictly speaking, not the topic of this thread. Plenty of people have been persecuted merely for having the wrong skin color. But I am speaking on this thread of those who have been persecuted in some way for their faith; I am wondering whether perhaps it might be more accurate to say that they were persecuted for their doubt.

In some cases, of course (perhaps most), it is a positive belief that actually rules out believing in accordance with the status quo. With the Christians, for example, to believe that Jesus alone is Lord is to rule out Caesar. But even this does not mean that the persecutors were concerned at all about Lord Jesus per se; what disturbed them was the lack of respect for Lord Caesar.

Political rivalries really do not belong to quite the same category as religious faith, in my estimation.

They were threats to the status quo.

Exactly. Christians passed the loyalty test, not by giving up their Christ, but rather by showing themselves loyal to Caesar. Therefore, what they were really being persecuted for was their disloyalty to Caesar.

Thanks, David.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

That is a good point.

Communism, of course, is really not a religious faith, so the principle enunciated in the OP remains technically untouched, but this is at least a good example (unless I am thinking wrongly about it) of being persecuted for a positive position rather than for a mere rejection of the opposite.

Thanks.

Ben.

Toto

I think that Communism as a political ideology, especially in America in the 50's, has more in common with religion that political affiliation. Communism was never a viable political stance. It arose in an era when religion seemed to be outdated, and its adherents had a religious attraction to some key ideas - that there were forces operating in society that would lead inevitably to a final Revolution, after which the corrupt political system would collapse and paradise would return. There is an obvious parallel to early Christians who rejected the material world and hoped for the final upheavel and the return of Jesus.

mountainman

Was Sopater, the wisest man of his epoch and head of the
academy of Plato, executed by Constantine on account of
his religious beliefs and/or his political beliefs and/or both
and/or neither?

DCHindley

Ben,

All right, let us leave out of consideration those who are of the Ethnic Jewish or African American "persuasion."

I am not so impressed by arguments that appeal to "status quo." It is just so hard to define.

I am not speaking of some sort of civil or secular religion. However, some Sociologists do find a certain equation between religious and political philosophies. Animosity between religious faith and political beliefs are not really about "status quo" so much as rejection of all who are not "true believers." In the American political scene, many who seem to be "true believers" also have relatives who are gay or have had abortions, whom they make special exceptions for. To say that adherence to anti gay-marriage or pro-life platforms is status quo is an overstatement. What these things represent are ideals. This places us again on the footing of "faith" in what should be.

How is being loyal to Christ different than NOT being loyal to Caesar?

DCH