A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. – Aristotle
From the earliest days of patriarchal civilization, religion has been a tool of government; in the earliest days kings were considered gods, and later they were believed to rule by divine right (in other words they were appointed by gods). Rulers also employed religion more directly, as a tool of enforcing conformity and instilling desired characteristics like obedience and humility into the populace; the child who is taught not to question his religion or his elders usually grows into an adult who rarely questions any pronouncement of an appropriately-sanctified authority figure. Furthermore, as Aristotle pointed out, rulers who pretend to piety inspire trust in the hoi-polloi, who foolishly believe that religious principles will guide the rulers’ behavior.
But sometimes religion was not merely used to keep an already-subject population docile, but to subjugate a conquered one. Islam is particularly notorious for forcing itself upon conquered peoples, but though Christianity was less aggressive in conversion its treatment of apostates was often nothing short of horrifying (such as the massacre of many thousands of French Cathars in the 13th century). The most infamous Western example was the Spanish Inquisition, established by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1480 to pressure Muslims and Jews into converting to Roman Catholicism, then terrorizing those suspected of false conversion. Despite its religious trappings and justification, the Inquisition was largely a political institution; it answered to the monarchy rather than the Papacy as the earlier Medieval Inquisition did, its primary purpose was to harass minorities suspected of disloyalty to the crown, and its victims (like those of modern police departments) were often targeted so the authorities could confiscate their wealth.
Forced conversion has become less popular in recent centuries, but rulers are still fond of extracting insincere oaths from subject peoples upon pain of serious consequences should they be discovered to have violated those oaths. After the Second World War American governments offered money to smaller countries willing to dance to whatever tune Washington cared to call, including participation in the barbaric Crusade Against Drugs (whose body count already exceeds that of the Albigensian Crusade by several orders of magnitude). But today I’d like to focus on just one example of this: the “Anti-Prostitution Pledge” organizations must sign in order to receive funds from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This organization purports to be dedicated to wiping out HIV worldwide, yet it requires any agency working with it to refuse aid to prostitutes (an important vector of HIV infection in Africa and less-developed parts of East Asia). Furthermore, PEPFAR refuses to fund needle exchanges (a proven method of slowing HIV transmission) and requires one-third of all granted funds to go to programs promoting sexual abstinence.
Though a lawsuit overturned the “anti-prostitution pledge” requirement for domestic organizations last July, the court left it in place for foreign groups despite universal criticism of the policy by health officials both in the United States and worldwide (most recently in the Report of the Global Commission on HIV and the Law). The International AIDS Conference (IAC) is being held in Washington, DC this week, and true to form the US has denied admission to anyone who has done sex work any time in the past ten years, despite the fact that the participation of sex worker organizations is vital in the fight against the disease. A parallel “Sex Worker Freedom Festival” is therefore underway in Kolkata, India, and is linked via internet with the main conference; tomorrow (July 24th) a group called We Can End AIDS will hold a march at the conference and will present “A Call to Action on Sex Work and HIV”, which you can still sign if you do so today.
If you’d like more information on the history of the oath, here’s a thirteen-minute video called “Just Sign on The Dotted Line”, and links to several more videos and other resources.
Islam is particularly notorious for forcing itself upon conquered peoples…
Perhaps. The Turkish Ottoman Empire took in a lot of Jews after they were expelled from Spain, principally into Constantinople, but made no real effort to convert them. Indeed, the Ottoman Empire was remarkably tolerant of other religions — as long as they kept the peace, and had a leader who could talk on their behalf with the Pashas. And the Sultan’s personal physician and dentist were always Jews — and possibly his circumciser as well. While the Ottomans were pleased to have converts, they didn’t force this onto their conquered people.
I second that. I doubt that most conversions were forceable under Islam. The subjects of Islam saw how good they could have it if they converted, and did so. That’s not to say there weren’t forceable conversions, but for Christianity to accuse Islam of this is the pot calling the kettle black.
For the record, I’m not a Christian so they shouldn’t be blamed for anything I say …
Conversion of Non-Muslim places of worship into mosques …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques
Forced conversion of Iran from Sunnism to Shiism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_from_Sunnism_to_Shiism
The Samaritans suffered forced conversions to both Christianity AND Islam
al-Hakem … “the mad caliph” …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah
Yeah, empire builders don’t have the luxuray of being “politically correct” and sometimes “The Good Guys” have to go over the line between good and evil.
We have the privilege of looking back on history and judging them, but if these guys didn’t get down in the mud and fight for their tribe, none of us would be here talking about.
And when it comes down do it, they looked at these people and knew they weren’t of their tribe. And what do people to people who aren’t of their tribe?
Well, what would Sherman do? Answer: he’d start burning.
Seriously, you confuse me. You’re like a hard core libertarian right up till something bad happens and then it’s like “FOR THE HONOR OF THE KING” statism.
Here’s a news flash – the internet is really a two-dimensional experience.
There’s all kinds of things you don’t know about me. You don’t know my real name. You don’t really know what kind of upbringing I had. You don’t know all of the things I did in Afghanistan and Iraq or the things I still do around the world in various countries. You don’t know what kind of an “empire guy” I really am. Am I just the kind that talks tough on the internet? Or, in reality, have I done a lot of compassionate things that would surprise you that I really haven’t mentioned?
So, it’s not surprising if you’re confused about me – you’re attempting to analyze me with incomplete information. Were we to sit down together over a cup of coffee – you might be more enlightened and a bit less confused. 😉
But this is true for anyone you will meet here, grasshopper! 😀
In reality though – I have explained this before … my differentiation between “within the tribe” and “outside the tribe” and how rules of order and justice and liberty apply to those of us on the “inside” while they don’t to those on the “outside”. Not everyone agrees with this – they don’t have to because it’s my opinion only and, with me – the wellbeing of the “tribe” comes first. There is no liberty for the “tribe” if it’s destroyed by those on the “outside”.
For instance – I don’t have a problem with Guantanamo Bay because it’s incarcerating those who are on the “outside”.
I DID have a problem with the execution of Anwar al-Awlaki because he was an American citizen (technically and “insider”) and was killed without due process. By the way … had he gotten due process – I’d have been happy to have shot him myself I despised the guy that much.
And … I’ve stated before … “my tribe” includes everyone in America (of every race, color and creed including undocumented immigrants) … and all of our allies and friends even though we disagree from time to time.
I don’t know what’s confusing about that … many don’t agree with it and that’s fine but it shouldn’t be “confusing”.
It’s confusing because libertarianism and statism is usually seen as being a one-dimensional issue. There’s a scale with libertarianism on one end and I guess fascism on the other and identifying with a “tribe” as something that falls much closer to fascism than libertarianism.
I mean, you just said the wellbeing of the “tribe” comes first, bro. That’s pretty out there.
Really, beyond the economic views and consensual behaviors being okay, do you consider yourself a libertarian?
What exactly is your opinion on like progressive taxation because it seems like on one hand, you said was a putative punishment on success, but since wellbeing of the tribe comes first wouldn’t progressive taxation be okay. You know, like of course they were planning over 51% of their income, they value you the tribe.
And when you say the “tribe”. Are you using “Alpha Wolf” slang for “nation” because I’ve been assuming that’s what you’re saying?
I use “tribe” as a descriptor but to me it means anyone who’s working toward a common goal for the common good of all – how is that fascism? I’m not excluding anyone (note I even included undocumented immigrants in the tribe – and even people who disagree with me). Did Hitler do that? I don’t think so.
Maybe to you, but to most of us – the world contains a full palate of colors and “grays” and is very three-dimensional.
I’ll ask her for that. But just to clarify some things: That’s actually more of the way people to explain libertarianism to me, so that’s I’ve always thought libertarians thinking of it as pretty much “libertarianism = good” opposed to “Statism = bad”.
And I’m not confusing, I’m all Zen and stuff. 😉 Maybe your world was simple enough to understand in a mere four years. But I live in a world that contains a full palate of colors and “grays” and is very three-dimensional. It’s hard man, you don’t know what it’s like out there, man. It’s
No, he’d put on the fires the retreating Confederate Armies set to deny the enemy materiel.
Well, the Ottomans were “empire builders” along the lines of the Romans. They used all religions as a means of controlling the people – very ingenious. They are an atypical example of Islam in a power position.
They did segregate people according to religions and even treated non-Muslims differently from Muslims. Non-Muslim localities under Ottoman control were treated as “resources” for the empire. Their development was often neglected and their riches were “taxed” for the benefit of Muslim communities.
Under the Ottoman Sultan, the leader of the Orthodox Christian Church was considered to be the leader of all Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman realm (regardless of nationality) – and the Orthodox Leader was accountable directly to the Sultan for the proper behavior of all those peoples. You are correct in saying that all religions flourished under the Ottomans – but a more correct statement would be that the Ottomans PUSHED ANY RELIGION as a means of controlling their empire – and they weren’t too worried about which religion it was. This, I think – is one of the points that validates Maggie’s column today.
The Orthodox Church grew to become a dominating force under the Ottomans because the Sultan bestowed privilege and power on the leader of the Orthodox Church in return for the good behavior of those peoples. This was a GREAT deal for the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church – but wasn’t a great deal at all for those considered by the Sultan to be “Orthodox” subjects of the realm.
—
For an “Empire guy” you seem to have a dim view of taxation.
Greeks lived under the Ottoman empire for 400 years and there are many sources of forced conversions and christians who pretended to be muslims in public.there were also catacombs where they practiced christianity in secret,just like in ancient Rome.whether coexistence between Greeks and Turks was peaceful depended at the place,time,the turkish authorities and of course political motives and interests at any given time.in Asia Minor before the genocide,according to the refugees they used to live together as friends.
I signed the petition.
Christianity has always been a religion whose greatest nemesis has always other Christians and your example reflects that as the Cathars were yet another branch of Christians.
Islam has always been more tolerant of Jews and Christians, which should be obvious. In Islam, they are the “people of the book” and believed in genuine prophets of Allah, but ones that got stuff wrong. Mohammed got all the stuff right but when he died, no Muslim was on his level of theology, so there was a lot of tolerance for people that were right but not right enough.
I believe Islam had much less tolerance for polytheism, such as the rather more violent relationship between Hindus and Muslims in India.
Most of the violence Islam directs toward “people of the book” is sectarian in nature, where religion are just an excuse for violence and aggression.
Yes … Islam is VERY tolerant …
From Osama Bin Laden’s … “Letter to Americans” …
^^That’s the FIRST demand … CONVERT! No, the first demand isn’t for us to quit supporting Israel – that comes much farther down his list of demands.
^^ That’s his SECOND demand … nothing less than an all-out PROHIBITION on just about all kinds of sexual behavior except with the Koran deems appropriate. We’re actually being condemned here for our tolerance of homosexuality among other things!
Many will say that Osama was a single man – and didn’t have a popular following. I can tell you – having visited a vast majority of the nations in the middle east – the man was one of the most popular people in the Islamic world and enjoyed a majority of support among ordinary Muslims.
I meant before all that post colonial stuff.
If the message of Christianity is (1) honour thy God and (2) love thy brother, then Islam has (1) believe in Allah (2) pray five times a day — when possible (3) keep the fast of Ramadan (4) give alms to the poor, so long as it doesn’t disadvantage your family (5) make the pilgrimage to Mecca, again if it doesn’t disadvantage your family.
Really, it’s hard to argue against these philosophies. But, as we all know, the theologians have taken over…and turned something basically humanitarian into monsters.
Exactly.
Shouldn’t it be “the polloi” or just “hoi polloi”?
That’s kind of like “The La Brea Tar Pits”.
😀
The Los Angeles Angels.
ATM machine.
There is another commandment in Islam: Do exactly what you are told and do not talk back. The only places that are “Islamic” and have something other than absolute, un-limited theocratic dictatorships are the places where no one takes the Koran seriously.
I am from Texas. We all grew up in the shadow of the Alamo. Die-ing while fighting off swarms of deranged authoritarian assholes is not a strange or unfamiliar concept.
I’ve got to hand it to Aristotle, and to Karl Marx for that matter. Both realized that religion is the opiate of the masses and that leaders like the masses as opiated as possible. And, Marx at least was willing to call that a bad thing. This is true whether or not the religion is true,whether or not it reflects actual historic events, whether or not it will save your soul, etc.
Neoconservatives like Leo Strauss are in perfect agreement about the effects of religion, but they also believe that the masses being opiated is a good thing. Important people, of course, should pretend to religion (and patriotism), but needn’t believe any of it. Important people don’t have faith, they only use the faith of others.
So while I’m no fan of Marx (except Groucho and his brothers), I find him preferable to Stauss.
I do like Strauss waltzes, though.
And I’m grateful to Levi Strauss for his invention.
[…] to ‘save” us from our own choices.” This is nothing new; all through history unscrupulous leaders have used similar claims (“saving the souls of heathens”, etc) to justify conquest, pillage, rape and murder, and the […]
What bothers me about religion is that Humans invented it!
You know… Humans; Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the self-aggrandising, lying, fornicating killing machines? Them ones. [sic].
*stage whisper* We can’t trust em, buggrit! The Master ort to be toled!
(Thankyou, Terry, for the genius of the discworld. ‘#Rip in peace’, dude).