Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

Is Polytheism a tool for tolerance?

All Acting Regiment

12:28 / 08.05.04

This is something that I have been wondering about for a while. We all know the theory that if a dominant group has one god, it is easier for them to bully other groups into submission (like for example the spanish invasion of southj america, where christianity was forced on polytheistic natives).
So, if a group of people beleive in set of different godforms, will that set of people be more likely to accept other's beleifs (based on the idea that there are many "true things", not just one?

19:18 / 08.05.04

i hear what you are saying, but a dominant group [having] one god seems less relevant than their having guns.
it is easier [...]to bully other groups into submission when you are shooting the ones who do not bow to your god.

but yeah, if you believe in a large pantheon(and add to it as you feel the need), it is probable that you will be able to accept a new god with more ease.

their framework fits into my framework, mine doesnt fit into their's.

19:44 / 08.05.04

I used to believe that it would be, but now I would say not necessarily. The one question I would ask is this. What happens if a pagan religion becomes the religion in POWER. To me that is the real determinant as to whether a tradition is tolerant or not. Frequently religious groups can develop utopian ideals, the belief that "if everyone just thought the same, the world would be a wonderful place". The problem with that is that human beings are essentially creative, and everyone will never believe the same. The question then becomes, "What should we do now that we are 'in power'"? Also, it should also be noted that in pagan Rome, the empire tolerated the native practices of conquered countries, but it was less than welcoming to early Christianity within it's own borders

All Acting Regiment

19:46 / 08.05.04

But if the groups with the guns are religious (and this has been the case for most of history), and they beleive that one true entity is telling them to shoot people, there is likely to be less dissent. I mean, technically if there were two gods in christianity, at the time of the crusades, you could have used "god B does not want us to crusade" as an excuse not to.

14:27 / 09.05.04

i see...
so having a gang of gods is helpful because appolo might disagree with zeus, and you could go with either? except that in most ploytheistic tradition there is a king figure (or leader of some kind), such as zeus, who has final say.

also, gods seem to bend to the current political will more often than not. i wonder at the level of communication between god/s and their worshippers in situations of such fanaticism as the crusades; i suspect the kings and queens making the decisions were not exactly in touch with their spirituality.

can you imagine some of the conversation in the polytheistic war room?

"but sir! the God of A clearly has spoken through the guttering of the candles in the great hall! we must attack as soon as night falls tomorrow!"

"ah, but sir, our God of B has told me in my fever-dreams and visions that to attack them would be a fatal error, and that we should buy more snackfoods to keep around the house!"

"damnit, getting high and eating all the fucking pringles is not communing with the god of b! you need real signs! omens! portents!"

"pringles are the sacrifice that the God of B asks for. i have no power over his demands, however costly they are to our weekly food budget. would you think to question the God of B?"

and so on.

Dances with Gophers

15:35 / 09.05.04

The Romans were polytheistic, they had a good strategy of absorbing native religions. An early hearts and minds campaign! Mind it didn't stop em trashing Anglesea the heart of Druidic influence (apparently).

15:49 / 09.05.04

was it the roman pantheon that made that so, or was it their compulsive empire building?
seems to me that a people will be easier to subjugate if you allow their religion to continue.

less holy warriors and the like.

if we look to imperial carthage, the romans were pretty fucking intolerant of their beliefs and ways of doing things. didnt they burn down most of the city of carthage? and then proceed to rebuild all of it in their own style, ramming home who was victor?
someone with better and more fresh ancient history knowledge may be able to correct me, but wasnt there talk of cannibalism being rife among the native carthaginians, similar to the accusations that they later levelled at the christians? i have a memory of hearing tales that the punic people ate babies, for some reason.

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:53 / 09.05.04

Well, presumably because they tasted good...

No evidence of eating children that I can think of, but Polybius mentions human sacrifice. That would be seen by Romans as barbaric, even that far back, but it was not the reason why Carthage was destroyed. Nor, as far as I can recall, were religious differences - Carthaginians worshipped a similar Graeco-Semitic pantheon to the Tyreans - Baal (Zeus), Tanit/Tanith (Astarte/Ishtar) and Melqarth (? - not sure about this one - anyone? Equivalent to Moloch? Cult deity? Not really my period or my geography), which would not be too alien to the Romans, even if they were rather less cosmopolitan at the time of the Punic Wars than in the late Republic or the Empire. Rome's religion, after all, was a mix of local cult and eastern influences. Carthage was levelled for political reasons - to avoid the necessity of going to war over conflicting spheres of influence every few generations, essentially. Although that conflict was reinscribed as a religious one, at least in part, in the Aeneid (the Rome of Jupiter against the Carthage of Juno), I don't think there is any real suggestion of any of the three Punic Wars being a crusade...

There are certainly areas where Roman state cult rubs up disagreeably against local religion - Judaea is an obvious example, where by the time the Romans turn up the locals are pretty fiercely monotheistic - but in general the model of combining local cult deities with Roman state deities, or just adding them wholesale to the gigantic Roman pantheon, seems to have worked out quite well...