Richard Dawkins criticised for Twitter comment about Muslims

[Eddie Teach]

It's the big reason Christianity was so successful, it was far more of an actual religion than the loose cultural worship that went before.

Christianity spread well because it called for more humane treatment of women and slaves, who made the bulk of the early converts.

[crazy canuck]

I know, and you are wrong.  While it is true that there were some periods of intolerance, it is wildly inaccurate to suggest that Pagan Rome tried to destroy Christianity.

Wildly inaccurate?  If you say so.  But the main point is there is no other similar thing to the Great Persecution, or the persecution of Decius, for other non-Christian religions.

I am not sure what you mean by the "Great Persecution" but if you are thinking about the Diocletian (sp?) was doing you might want to reflect on how short lived, ineffective (due to the fact that few local commanders actually followed through) and how localized it was (it didnt happen in other parts of the Empire).  Also you should consider that the eradication of the Druids was much more comprehensive, effective and of lasting effect - not to mention the destruction of the Jewish temple and that whole manner of worship by the Jewish people.  So no, your main point that "no other similar thing" happened to other non-Chrisitian religions is patently false.

As for the "pursecution of Decius" that is a good example which proves my point.  Up until that point Christians had been tolerated - despite what the Gospels have to say (which is a good reason to belief that are not historical documents but that is another argument).  But increasingly Christians were themselves becoming an intolerant bunch as they believed that everyone else was wrong and their religion was the only possible religion.  The kind of intolerance already pointed out in this thread.  Ironically it was because of this Christian intolerance of other religious belief that they came to be known as athiests.  The edict by Decius was not aimed to eradicate Chrisitainity - although Christians have certainly tried to view it that way.  It was a means of attempting to re-create public order by forcing the Christians to be tolerant of the Pagans around them.  It didnt work of course but it has nothing to do with trying to destroy Christianity.  You are correct that there is nothing similar to this simply because there were no other religions as intolerant of other religions and so such an edict was never necessary in relation to other religions.

[crazy canuck]

It's the big reason Christianity was so successful, it was far more of an actual religion than the loose cultural worship that went before.

Christianity spread well because it called for more humane treatment of women and slaves, who made the bulk of the early converts.

Yes, and the poor.  There were some notable conversions among the elite but they have come down to us because they were so rare and remarkable.

[Valmy]

I am not sure what you mean by the "Great Persecution" but if you are thinking about the Diocletian (sp?) was doing you might want to reflect on how short lived, ineffective (due to the fact that few local commanders actually followed through) and how localized it was (it didnt happen in other parts of the Empire).  Also you should consider that the eradication of the Druids was much more comprehensive, effective and of lasting effect - not to mention the destruction of the Jewish temple and that whole manner of worship by the Jewish people.  So no, your main point that "no other similar thing" happened to other non-Chrisitian religions is patently false.

The Destruction of the Jewish Temple was entirely political (and it seems was carried out by the Roman Army against Titus' orders) and the Romans never persecuted Judaism in the sense that they tried to get Jews to stop being Jews.  The Druid thing is probably also an exception, but it largely focussed on a tiny elite.

In any case the persecution was relatively short lived, though it did carry over into more than one Emperor's reign and it was mainly localized in the East.  However the fact is that nothing as widespread or systematic was ever elsewhere done by the Romans in a (granted ineffectually and futile) effort to eradicate a religion.

You are correct that there is nothing similar to this simply because there were no other religions as intolerant of other religions and so such an edict was never necessary in relation to other religions.

Indeed.  I was not intending this as a value judgement for or against the Romans or Christians just noting the uniqueness. 

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure what you mean by the "Great Persecution" but if you are thinking about the Diocletian (sp?) was doing you might want to reflect on how short lived, ineffective (due to the fact that few local commanders actually followed through) and how localized it was (it didnt happen in other parts of the Empire).  Also you should consider that the eradication of the Druids was much more comprehensive, effective and of lasting effect - not to mention the destruction of the Jewish temple and that whole manner of worship by the Jewish people.  So no, your main point that "no other similar thing" happened to other non-Chrisitian religions is patently false.

The Destruction of the Jewish Temple was entirely political (and it seems was carried out by the Roman Army against Titus' orders) and the Romans never persecuted Judaism in the sense that they tried to get Jews to stop being Jews.   

Everything the Pagan Romans did against the Christians was political.  The Chrisitians would have been left alone if they had just left others alone (using the Jewish model as a guide).  Going back to my point.  The Romans didn care what religion you had so long as it did not disrupt the civic administration of the Republic and then the Empire.

Contrast that with the Christianized Rome which did care very much what people believed which is the point Tyr was making.

[Valmy]

Everything the Pagan Romans did against the Christians was political.  The Chrisitians would have been left alone if they had just left others alone (using the Jewish model as a guide).  Going back to my point.  The Romans didn care what religion you had so long as it did not disrupt the civic administration of the Republic and then the Empire.

Well I do not think that is entirely accurate.  They had real anxiety about Christianity, for good reason as it turned out, and there was a great deal of hostility towards it for theological reasons attacking it for being atheistic and endangering the Roman State by denying the Gods.  Also since I entirely agree with your point I do not see why you keep bringing it up.  Yes indeed the Romans did not care and were generally very tolerant.  The Christian thing is (mostly) unique.

Contrast that with the Christianized Rome which did care very much what people believed which is the point Tyr was making.

I agree with this point.  Eradicating religions was mostly a Christian Roman Empire thing.

[crazy canuck]

Well I do not think that is entirely accurate.  They had real anxiety about Christianity, for good reason as it turned out, and there was a great deal of hostility towards it for theological reasons attacking it for being atheistic and endangering the Roman State by denying the Gods.  Also since I entirely agree with your point I do not see why you keep bringing it up.  Yes indeed the Romans did not care and were generally very tolerant.  The Christian thing is (mostly) unique.

The point where I think you and I disagree is you originally said the Pagan Romans tried to destroy Christianity.  They didn't.  The only concern the Romans had was that the Christians were becoming disruptive.  It was a political matter.  There were large areas of the Empire where the Christians were not viewed as disruptive but rather worked in quite well for the efficient running of civic life.  In other words you are generalizing too much.

Pagan Romans didnt want Christians to stop being Christians they just wanted Christians to be good Romans.  Which, in the end, is a cautionary tale of being careful what you wish for.

[Razgovory]

I don't think you understand, the pagan outlook made religion more central to their lives, not less.  Proper veneration of the gods was necessary to their very survival. The idea that you could separate religion from any other human activity was impossible.  For them life was religion.

And they sure as hell destroyed the Celtic religions, and religion was always a major factor for Roman behavior be it war or peace. The Romans suppressed the Druids long after they had conquered what's now France, Northern Italy etc.

I used Japan as an example of a Pagan religion in the far East "not playing nice" with other religions.  I imagine I can find quite a few more.

In most paganism the gods were just part of the world you had to deal with, not something to be actively worshipped for the sake  of worship ala Christianity.
It's the big reason Christianity was so successful, it was far more of an actual religion than the loose cultural worship that went before.

As I said the druids were a political threat to Rome. The Romans couldn't give a toss about their religion . And no. I suspect you're building a stupid argument base  on generals looking  to omens and that sort of thing here. That Gods were part of war, that omens even said it as a good time  for war, is a very different thing to Christians an  Muslims going  to war FOR religion.

Except Shinto did get along with other religions. It was for irreligious reasons that Japan had a spell of dickery.

I think you'll find political and economic reasons for every war even Christian and Muslims ones this does not discount their religious character.  Attempting to divide the reasons for Shinto and European Paganism but not for Christianity and Islam is absurd.

[Valmy]

I think you'll find political and economic reasons for every war even Christian and Muslims ones this does not discount their religious character.  Attempting to divide the reasons for Shinto and European Paganism but not for Christianity and Islam is absurd.

Nonsense.  Many wars fought by Christians and Muslims had jack all to do with religion even in pretext.

[Razgovory]

I think you'll find political and economic reasons for every war even Christian and Muslims ones this does not discount their religious character.  Attempting to divide the reasons for Shinto and European Paganism but not for Christianity and Islam is absurd.

Nonsense.  Many wars fought by Christians and Muslims had jack all to do with religion even in pretext.

Okay.

[Valmy]

I think you'll find political and economic reasons for every war even Christian and Muslims ones this does not discount their religious character.  Attempting to divide the reasons for Shinto and European Paganism but not for Christianity and Islam is absurd.

Nonsense.  Many wars fought by Christians and Muslims had jack all to do with religion even in pretext.

Okay.

Oh good.  That was easy.