lpetrich

How much religious intolerance has there been among followers of non-Abrahamic religions? I don't know much about Asian examples, but I'm somewhat more familiar with pagan Greco-Roman examples.

I don't recall there being any holy wars fought over religion in that realm; holy wars fought over which lovers Zeus had had or which was a legitimate oracle, for example.

In that realm, most places had had official cults and state religions, but these generally did not exclude others. And it was common to identify deities of one place with deities of another place, though some of the identifications may have been rather forced.

x-member

It is absolute speculation on my part (but what the heck)..

I believe that there is a correlation between religions with a doctirn of proselytizing, and religions which commit abuses.

Quetzal

lpetrich: I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Doesn't Homer's "Hymn to Apollo" refer to the displacement of Ge or maybe Themis at Delphi? Also, there were four Sacred Wars over control of Delphi between 601 and 399 BCE (although these were primarily political or for control of the tourist trade) between the Phocians and the Amphictyony or the Locians and Macedonia. It's significant that Apollo was willing to share billing with Dionysus (during the winter) at Delphi, I guess.

The problem with ancient wars is, at least for me, the determination of what motivated them, and how much the role of religion (vice simple conquest) played in each. You may have a point.

hinduwoman

Well, I think being polythiestic helps, because you simply absorb all gods in your own pantheon.
A lot of hindu myths actually talk about quarrels among the gods about who should get worship or is greater (read wars among tribes worshipping different gods), but as soon as there was some kind of adjustment the gods were assimilated. It is done by saying they are the children of other gods, (Ganesha for example is said to be the son of Parvati), or they are the aspects of one god (village goddeses for example are simply declared to be really many aspects of Kali).
In historical times, Buddhism was tolerated until it became a threat to Brahmanical social dominance. Then there were clashes, but very few monastires were burnt or monks killed. But as soon the new group adjusted themselves to the social structures with a few changes on both sides, Buddha became an avatar of Vishnu.

RyanS2

Well, the roots lie in what Polytheism is versus what monotheism is. The strongest proponents of monotheism were kings who had identified themselves with Gods, then demanded that particular Gods worship by their followers. The earliest one was the Egyptian Pharaoh Ikhnaton, (Akhenaten), who reigned from 1379 to 1362 BCE. He had decided that the supreme deity was Aton, a form symbolized by the solar disk and incarnated into the Earth. Some of the preliminary ideas about monotheism seem to have been transmitted from Egypt into the Israeli province, particularly as the Old Testament contains varying degrees of writings copied from the Aton Cult, in particular Psalm 104. Several others came following after that, as in Egypt the Roman Emperor Elagabalus, (Heliogabalus), who thought he was the Solar God El Gabal. Fifty years later, Aurelian erected his temple to the Mithraic Solar God, Deus Sol Invictus, the only God.

Polytheism is VERY hard to use as an antagonist to another religion. Even in polytheism, for instance, against Buddhism, the Brahman's said that Buddha didn't believe in any Gods. Other sects try to become almost monotheistic, (well, henotheistic, which is what classical Judaism and classical Islam were. Henotheistic is where you have one major God who rules over lesser Gods in a certain area. Hence the reason St. Augustine believed in pagan Gods, just thought they were "false Gods"). Anyway, these types of fueds assert one God or Godhead as superior to others.