Brdavs wrote:In nomine Domini incipit omne malum.
Not quite true although it's a nifty phrase that generalises far too much. Things like the Inquisition and the Crusades require an in-depth understanding of the context and various priorities and agendas of all involved rather than the blanket term of its all religion's fault.
One must understand the volatile Frankish civilisation at the time, the powerless nature of the central ruling kingships, the nature of the aristocracy and lineage, domination of vassals with their competing agendas as well as the literal invasions and conquests of the caliphates which everyone seems to forget were fresh in the minds of the Europeans. The loss of Spain and all African holdings, the battle of Tours which prevented the Muslim conquest of Europe and other military offences aimed at the various geographic area of Latin Christendom before the first crusade was ever launched. Amongst this you have the rise of the aggressive Turks who saw the systematic dismantling and destruction of the Byzantines eastern empire cumulating in the siege of Constantinople itself and the Eastern Roman Emperor’s call for help to perhaps the sole figure with the potential to unite a divided West beset by immense internal and economic troubles. The East’s need and long desire to use Western troops to hold the front was matched only by the West’s desire to use this opportunity to reconcile the theological differences.
If one actually goes through the translated documents of the time, the call for the crusades were a rather specific pilgrimage to Jerusalem and back with no mention of settlement or conquest and which had the focus on the dangers of the ethnic Turk to pilgrims attempting to reach the holy lands unmolested rather than the Muslim danger. That is, a nationalistic and ethnic categorisation rather than a clash of religions. The Turks at the time held vast swathes of occupied land and as such the crusaders were in many cases helped and hailed by the various Arabic ethnic groups who were under Turkish oppression. This view changed of course with the integration of the Turks to these peoples and the rise of identifying one with religion first and ethnic group second (The greatest factor in the failures of subsequent crusades), but during the initial calls, this was not quite the case yet.
So you can generalise and say religion causes all wars like the crusades. Or, you can have a deeper look into the tensions that resulted in what was to follow. That is, the fight against a new and powerful ethnic group, the opportunity to remarry the two Christian lands, the lifting of a siege on the greatest bastion of Christendom, the fear of invasion if the Byzantines were conquered, the opportunity for younger brothers to make a name for themselves in a patrilineal society whereby inheritance laid with the eldest sons, the economic potential of new trade routes, the assertion or disposal of political rivals in their dispatching to the holy lands, the idea of a reactionary campaign against the series of expansionist Islamic caliphates, the opportunity for central kings to assert themselves as rulers and uniting their feuding vassals who had until that time far more influence then the king themselves, the reassertion of the Church which until that time was heavily reliant and subservient to the Holy Roman Emperor and finally the theological journey and concept of defending Christendom and Christianity as a whole from destruction.
The Crusades presented opportunity of which only a single facet was Religion but through counter cultural movements has become the blanket term for the expeditions as a whole and the only reason that is held accountable for the atrocities committed during them while ignoring and systematically factoring out all other reasons, agendas and motivations.
Likewise the generalising of World War 1 as simply the German's fault and they were the only bad guys is a more modern comparison for the implication of that phrase. To truly understand the reasons, one must look into the complexities of the war and what caused it as well as the motivations and ulterior reasons for the war and who had to gain, why the tensions were in place, what lead up to it and it becomes somewhat far too advanced to explain in a short amount of time [hence the simplification of the blanket term, ‘blame the Germans’].
Again one can say that America is the root of all evil because of the failings of some of its leaders and leadership caste or that all fascists are evil because of the Nazi take upon it or that Islam is a militant and extremist movement because of the recent terror activities or that the entire Western world is exploiting the developing world in a callous manner because of the failures and shortcuts of some corporations. This is why generalising is wrong and it bothers me that religion and its actions are judged using modern ethics in a medieval context to justify current religious discrimination or lay blame while casting aside all other factors.
The conflicts and evils caused by the "us" and "them" mentality apply to all identifying attributes and not just religion.
Has religion caused a lot of problems? Yes. Has religion likewise set solid foundations for the Western world to be built upon? Yes. Is it the cause of all evil and wars? No. There have been more wars, death and atrocities committed in the 20th century then any other century. Was religion the focus? No. It was the marriage between the liberal and nationalistic ideology meeting its competitor ideologies in communist and various socialist regimes.
If you work out the reasons and justifications for wars and evils, you'll find the overwhelming majority are caused by secular issues of pride, economics and racial or nationalistic tensions.
^That was meant to be a small side comment. Apologies for getting somewhat carried away.
DaJman wrote:Demon Eater wrote:an i for one am a mormon an proud to be a mormon my family is a Mormon family an it will continue
i have a question for mormons... why does it change so much? your book seems to change constantly. mormons used to take on multipul wives for example until it was frowned upon by society so they went and said that god said it wasn't ok anymore... explain this?
I cannot speak on the mormons behalf but christianity in general has a history of this, as do the other two Abrahamic religions dating all the way back to just after their conception. If you read into philosophers such as Ibn Rushd (Islamic), Maimonides (Jewish) or Augustine of Hippo (Christian), you'll find the same train of thought discussed indepth.
A very simple and basic explaintion dating back to the 5th century is as follows:
...took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason
There are entire fields of study devoted to discussing these ideas and why philosophy and religious history are still prominent and relevent today.
As for myself, I was brought up a Catholic but am very much an independent person who likes to explore ideas and very open to all views relating to the human psyche of which religion is but one contributor. The historian in me too, just loves to waste time reading up on the different eras of human history in a variety of stages and circumstances in which various ideas or views were held and dominant.
For Rome!
