Real-world sensitivities and game names

[Tifone]

I don't wanna partecipate to this thread because I'm a kind of fanatic of religious discussions and I don't wanna bore anybody here. I just wanna say - the "theory" about the "black legend" of the Inquisition (claiming that the Inquisition was much better than people usually think) has been literally destroyed piece by piece by... I think /all/ the serious historians. It was a just one plug of that big historic revisionism which denies clear and horrible things of the past of the mankind by manipulating facts, omitting evidence, considering only certain favourable data. Like if we can make our nature "better" forgetting our crimes, instead of learning from them what we were, and what we must not become again.

Damn, just coming to Italy (which surely wasn't protestant, as many say that only the lutheran christians made victims with the inquisition) you will find many museums filled with thousands of the horrible and incredibly cruel stocks used for torture... surely they weren't made after that period just to accuse the church unjustly, don't you think?

[MaxWilson]

HoneyBadger said:
Well, that right there is the main transgression. It's never been purely Christianity that has caused problems. It's always been state-supported Christianity that has been responsible for, or furthered, such niceties as the second class citizenship of women, support of slavery and condemnation of homosexuality, polygamy, burning of "witches"

Polygamy is the anomaly here. The only instance of Christian polygamy (Mormon polygamists in the 19th century) I can think of was not only not state-sponsored, but in fact faced intense opposition from Congress and the federal government.

I don't think Christians who supported slavery in the 19th century had state backing for their positions either, although a cynic would observe that it's always convenient when your religious views happen to support the political views that you want to have anyway.

-Max

Edit: fixed typo

[thejeff]

I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about religion with State
backing as being some kind of anomaly.

Religious leaders have often sought temporal power. Temporal leaders have often sought religious backing to justify whatever it is they want to do anyway.

If all you are saying is that when Christians have no power they're harmless, then that's almost a tautology.

Was the Catholic Church throughout most of it's history "state supported"? Or were the states given legitimacy by the Church?

[HoneyBadger]

Well, I happen to live in Utah, and admittedly, it wasn't sanctioned by the Mormon church for very long or particularly well, but it did happen, and it was the church founders who were the ones doing it, even as they were publically condemning it. And they had significant, if not ultimate, governmental and political power-more local than federal, but the difference probably didn't mean a whole lot to their various wives.

[HoneyBadger]

It's the combination of the two, thejeff. The Roman Empire supported the early Christian church, and the Catholic church then went on to legitimize the states that followed.

And anything is harmless, if it has no power-the most evil-minded dandelion in the world isn't much of a threat, except to my lawn-it's what's done with whatever power a thing has, that makes a difference.

And the fact remains that in many unfortunate circumstances, Christianity was wielded like a "terrible, swift sword" for reasons political, but in the name of the spiritual.

[thejeff]

Which is my point. Saying "It's never been purely Christianity that has caused problems. It's always been state-supported Christianity", is really just saying Christianity has only caused problems when it's had the power to do so. It's white-washing religion's role in those problems.

Not to blame all problems on Christianity or other religions, or to say they've done no good.

[JimMorrison]

thejeff said:
Which is my point. Saying "It's never been purely Christianity that has caused problems. It's always been state-supported Christianity", is really just saying Christianity has only caused problems when it's had the power to do so. It's white-washing religion's role in those problems.

Not to blame all problems on Christianity or other religions, or to say they've done no good.

Somehow this just sounds like "Religion is a powerful weapon, let us pray it does not fall into the wrong hands.".

[HoneyBadger]

I think Christianity has done quite a lot of good things, either as a force-the Salvation Army, for example-or as individuals (Martin Luther King). But religion can be a dangerous tool that can be used to exploit people and their faith. Whether it's tv evangelists taking money from people who can't afford to live, or anti-semitics who used Christianity as an excuse to persecute Jews.

Religion-and by this I mean the People of the Book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is like a virus of ideas and ideals. It occupies a host, changing the host to suit it's needs, and then it spreads itself by various means, infecting people more or less strongly, depending on their ability/willingness to fight the infection (or catch the "Spirit"). It's not necessarily a disease-as in, harmful, because the ways in which it seeks to change it's host are often very beneficial-but it often operates with the methods of one, and Christianity is especially virulent, predisposing it's hosts (Missionaries) to seeking out, and then converting, any segments of the population that haven't built up a tolerance for it yet. It mutates, taking on more exotic forms: Mormons, born-again Christians, Rastafarians, Voodoo, even exotic strains, like the deadly Ebola cults of David Coresh and Jonestown, etc.

Viruses by themselves aren't evil. We may think of them superstitiously in those terms, from time to time, but we don't really attach sentience and will to do harm to microscopic (or thought) organisms. They're out to perpetuate themselves, just like we are. And at times, they can be harmful to other life-forms, just like we can. That also doesn't mean they can't do a lot of good too-some have speculated that some form of virus is what caused us to evolve in such a way as to develope speech and language-but if they're introduced into an unprotected, susceptible host, then they can potentially do damage.

They can also mutate over time into more benevolent forms, which are more compatable-more symbiotic and less parasitic-with their hosts than the original form. And I think that's what's happening with religion today. It can still be a force for harm and destruction at times, if the infection is extreme and uncontrolled, but it can also benefit, and take advantage from, peaceful co-existence with the people who actually live by it's ideals, and the people those come into contact with.

[Tifone]

Guys I wanna warn you all. We are starting to think too smartly. They will make us all disappear in some new, elegant, smiling way.

[MaxWilson]

Ah, so when you say "religion" you really mean "the Abrahamic religions." Interesting, but a potentially confusing choice of words because inevitably someone is going to counter a generalization about "religion" with an example from a weird little religion practiced in 16th-century New Guineau (to paraphrase Steven Pinker) and that won't have been what you were trying to talk about at all.

By the way, I think you've just reinvented the concept of "meme". Heh. Now the meme meme has multiple origins.

-Max