What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Brain]

I suppose religions that are universal (not ethnic) and intolerant (don't allow other religions) have a competitive advantage. Hence the victories of Christianity and Islam.

I feel like "don't allow other religions" is not quite correct, although I see what you're getting at.

Islam in particular had various rules for "dhimmi", for non muslims living under muslim rule.  Christianity has at various times ruled over non-Christian populations, and while they would clearly pressure local inhabitants to convert, it was never of the "run through all non-believers with a sword".  The existanmce of long-standing jewish communities in both the Christian and Islamic world is proof enough of that.

I am talking about the religions, not about governments. The religions don't even acknowledge the existence of other gods.

[Barrister]

I suppose religions that are universal (not ethnic) and intolerant (don't allow other religions) have a competitive advantage. Hence the victories of Christianity and Islam.

I feel like "don't allow other religions" is not quite correct, although I see what you're getting at.

Islam in particular had various rules for "dhimmi", for non muslims living under muslim rule.  Christianity has at various times ruled over non-Christian populations, and while they would clearly pressure local inhabitants to convert, it was never of the "run through all non-believers with a sword".  The existanmce of long-standing jewish communities in both the Christian and Islamic world is proof enough of that.

I am talking about the religions, not about governments. The religions don't even acknowledge the existence of other gods.

Sure, but that goes towards them being universal religions, not "intolerant".

As mentioned, Islam (the religion) has rules in the Koran for dealing with non-believers, the dhimmi.  They have to pay extra taxes, they have to submit to Islamic leadership, but they are tolerated to a certain extent.

Christianity - well the Bible was written in an age when Christianity was a minority religion.  It didn't even contemplate Christians running the government, and indeed spoke of submitting to the local secular authorities.

To the extent that both religions were the most intolerant, it was with so-called heretics within their faith.  Consider the sunni/shia split, or the European wars of religion following the reformation.

[Josquius]

I suppose religions that are universal (not ethnic) and intolerant (don't allow other religions) have a competitive advantage. Hence the victories of Christianity and Islam.

I feel like "don't allow other religions" is not quite correct, although I see what you're getting at.

Islam in particular had various rules for "dhimmi", for non muslims living under muslim rule.  Christianity has at various times ruled over non-Christian populations, and while they would clearly pressure local inhabitants to convert, it was never of the "run through all non-believers with a sword".  The existanmce of long-standing jewish communities in both the Christian and Islamic world is proof enough of that.

On the other hand there's the elimination of every native religion in Europe....

[Sheilbh]

I feel like "don't allow other religions" is not quite correct, although I see what you're getting at.

Islam in particular had various rules for "dhimmi", for non muslims living under muslim rule.  Christianity has at various times ruled over non-Christian populations, and while they would clearly pressure local inhabitants to convert, it was never of the "run through all non-believers with a sword".  The existanmce of long-standing jewish communities in both the Christian and Islamic world is proof enough of that.

Without going fully into Ottoman Empire/al-Andalus as an almost contemporary multicultural, multifaith idyll - but I think there is a difference in Christianity and Islam on this.

Islam has the distinction of people of the book and others. From a legal/government perspective they have different rights but people of the book are, to an extent, a protected class (and the early Caliphates swing between encouraging conversion v wanting the tax income from the jizya). But they also believe that all people of the book are worshipping Allah - they are different traditions and Islam is the latest and final revelation, but they are all worshipping the same God in different ways. So they will all be saved eventually although they may be in hell for a bit. Whoever has faith (of the book) even as small as a grain of sand is eventually saved.

I think that is quite a different perspective on whether (certain) other religions can be allowed and how from Christianity for much of Christian history. Because allowing even other Christian denominations for Christians - with some exceptions like Jews - puts your people's eternal souls at risk in the way a good ruler shouldn't.

[The Brain]

I suppose religions that are universal (not ethnic) and intolerant (don't allow other religions) have a competitive advantage. Hence the victories of Christianity and Islam.

I feel like "don't allow other religions" is not quite correct, although I see what you're getting at.

Islam in particular had various rules for "dhimmi", for non muslims living under muslim rule.  Christianity has at various times ruled over non-Christian populations, and while they would clearly pressure local inhabitants to convert, it was never of the "run through all non-believers with a sword".  The existanmce of long-standing jewish communities in both the Christian and Islamic world is proof enough of that.

I am talking about the religions, not about governments. The religions don't even acknowledge the existence of other gods.

Sure, but that goes towards them being universal religions, not "intolerant".

As mentioned, Islam (the religion) has rules in the Koran for dealing with non-believers, the dhimmi.  They have to pay extra taxes, they have to submit to Islamic leadership, but they are tolerated to a certain extent.

Christianity - well the Bible was written in an age when Christianity was a minority religion.  It didn't even contemplate Christians running the government, and indeed spoke of submitting to the local secular authorities.

To the extent that both religions were the most intolerant, it was with so-called heretics within their faith.  Consider the sunni/shia split, or the European wars of religion following the reformation.

As i said, what I meant by universal was that they are not ethnic. That quality is unrelated to the intolerant quality. A religion can be open to all ethnicities while acknowledging the existence of other gods.

The historical record obviously supports the intolerance of Christianity.

[Barrister]

I feel like "don't allow other religions" is not quite correct, although I see what you're getting at.

Islam in particular had various rules for "dhimmi", for non muslims living under muslim rule.  Christianity has at various times ruled over non-Christian populations, and while they would clearly pressure local inhabitants to convert, it was never of the "run through all non-believers with a sword".  The existanmce of long-standing jewish communities in both the Christian and Islamic world is proof enough of that.

Without going fully into Ottoman Empire/al-Andalus as an almost contemporary multicultural, multifaith idyll - but I think there is a difference in Christianity and Islam on this.

Islam has the distinction of people of the book and others. From a legal/government perspective they have different rights but people of the book are, to an extent, a protected class (and the early Caliphates swing between encouraging conversion v wanting the tax income from the jizya). But they also believe that all people of the book are worshipping Allah - they are different traditions and Islam is the latest and final revelation, but they are all worshipping the same God in different ways. So they will all be saved eventually although they may be in hell for a bit. Whoever has faith (of the book) even as small as a grain of sand is eventually saved.

I think that is quite a different perspective on whether (certain) other religions can be allowed and how from Christianity for much of Christian history. Because allowing even other Christian denominations for Christians - with some exceptions like Jews - puts your people's eternal souls at risk in the way a good ruler shouldn't.

So this is well outside my expertise, but I understand that Islam ultimately did tolerate religions such as hindus and zoroastrians as well, despite them not being "people of the book".

To cover Jos's talk of "the native religions of Europe" - don't take Christian "tolerance" of different faiths too far.  Generally speaking you could expect non-Christian shrines to be destroyed, or public religious ceremonies to be banned.  That's certainly what "we" did with First Nations religions.  But it was never "you must be baptized or killed".


And I do really think you have to separate out how both religions treated people of different faiths, versus "heretics" from within your own faith.

And I feel

[Admiral Yi]

Dude shot up Colorado SC building at night.  No one hurt.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So this is well outside my expertise, but I understand that Islam ultimately did tolerate religions such as hindus and zoroastrians as well, despite them not being "people of the book".

Obviously varied based on the regime, but yeah--Muslim rulers did tolerate Hindus and Zoroastrians at times. Usually the big caveat for groups like that, was they were not allowed to proselytize, so if they tried to convert Muslims that would be a serious crime. In fact the relict Zoroastrian community in India largely adopted the refusal to proselytize as a "religious dogma" in the 1000s for that reason (not because of a Muslim regime, but rather a Hindu one that accepted them as refugees but with a stipulation of no proselytizing)--historically before that Zoroastrians did convert and accept converts, even if it wasn't a traditionally missionary / evangelizing religion.

[Jacob]

But it was never "you must be baptized or killed".

Charlemagne disagrees:

In 782 at the Massacre of Verden, Charlemagne reportedly ordered the slaughter of some 4,500 Saxons. He eventually forced the Saxons to convert to Christianity, and declared that anyone who didn't get baptized or follow other Christian traditions be put to death.

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/charlemagne

[Razgovory]

I suppose religions that are universal (not ethnic) and intolerant (don't allow other religions) have a competitive advantage. Hence the victories of Christianity and Islam.

I feel like "don't allow other religions" is not quite correct, although I see what you're getting at.

Islam in particular had various rules for "dhimmi", for non muslims living under muslim rule.  Christianity has at various times ruled over non-Christian populations, and while they would clearly pressure local inhabitants to convert, it was never of the "run through all non-believers with a sword".  The existanmce of long-standing jewish communities in both the Christian and Islamic world is proof enough of that.

On the other hand there's the elimination of every native religion in Europe....

Europeans had some shitty religions.

[Barrister]

But it was never "you must be baptized or killed".

Charlemagne disagrees:

In 782 at the Massacre of Verden, Charlemagne reportedly ordered the slaughter of some 4,500 Saxons. He eventually forced the Saxons to convert to Christianity, and declared that anyone who didn't get baptized or follow other Christian traditions be put to death.

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-ages/charlemagne

OK, insert "rarely" in front of "never".  Fair enough.

[Jacob]

OK, insert "rarely" in front of "never".  Fair enough.

My impression is that the conversion of Germannic and Slavic Europe had a significant "by the sword" component. The Baltic Crusaders were pretty brutal as I understand it, and the conversions of Saxony and Scandinavia were pretty rough at times to, with "convert or die" being employed with some frequency.

After that I agree that Christianity refocused mostly on persuasion and coercion to encourage conversion.

Though... actually... I don't know, how did it work during the Iberian Reconquista? Were the Muslims forced to convert, did they get pushed out, or were they pretty much left alone?

[Barrister]

OK, insert "rarely" in front of "never".  Fair enough.

My impression is that the conversion of Germannic and Slavic Europe had a significant "by the sword" component. The Baltic Crusaders were pretty brutal as I understand it, and the conversions of Saxony and Scandinavia were pretty rough at times to, with "convert or die" being employed with some frequency.

After that I agree that Christianity refocused mostly on persuasion and coercion to encourage conversion.

Though... actually... I don't know, how did it work during the Iberian Reconquista? Were the Muslims forced to convert, did they get pushed out, or were they pretty much left alone?

Pretty sure they weren't left alone - I thought it was more "convert or leave".  That was certainly what happened to the Jews.

But again, I'm speaking from a pretty generalist knowledge.

[Gups]

OK, insert "rarely" in front of "never".  Fair enough.

My impression is that the conversion of Germannic and Slavic Europe had a significant "by the sword" component. The Baltic Crusaders were pretty brutal as I understand it, and the conversions of Saxony and Scandinavia were pretty rough at times to, with "convert or die" being employed with some frequency.

After that I agree that Christianity refocused mostly on persuasion and coercion to encourage conversion.

Though... actually... I don't know, how did it work during the Iberian Reconquista? Were the Muslims forced to convert, did they get pushed out, or were they pretty much left alone?

Jews and Muslims had to convert or leave (at best). Jews were also expelled from numerous other countries at various points including England.

[PDH]

Big Chuck got his idea about the conversions of the Saxon from Clovis - who saved time according to the chronicles by force marching the defeated enemy across a river to baptize them, then killed them on the far side so they wouldn't backslide...