3 ms·

> But the role itself has a critical flaw. The bloody history of every church demonstrates what happen when men speak for God and are believed. To quote Cheste

> But the role itself has a critical flaw. The bloody history of every church demonstrates what happen when men speak for God and are believed. To quote Chesterton, “There are only two kinds of people, those who accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and don't know it.” Pluralism is a dogma like any other. The stereotype of bloody religious wars is a tired and melodramatic one. The bloodiest wars were not religious, or I should say, not traditionally religious. Look at the bloody revolutions and wars fought for the sake of liberalism, liberty, republicanism, communism, socialism, and so on. These, too, can be said to be religious wars because man is religious in the broad sense. What he takes to be the highest good becomes the object of his worship and that which orders and organizes the rest of his life. That is why there is no such thing as "neutrality". "Neutrality" is a liberal concept that attempts to establish liberal norms and sensibilities as the One True Way by trying to pass them off as something prior to debate or beyond debate. It's a need trick to attain hegemony. And consider that if a "theocratic" power tried to extinguish your preferred variety of pluralism through peaceful means, and the "pluralistic" camp was unable to resist through peaceful means, is it really that improbable that the latter might resort to violence?

danjac 4y ago
> The bloodiest wars were not religious, or I should say, not traditionally religious The bloodiest war fought on European soil, right up until World War One, was the Thirty Years' War. The world wars' higher death toll can be attributed to 20th century technology; the Thirty Years War was fought with 17th century weapons yet still led to the death of 5-8 million people. And sure, while there were political motivations involved - you could say the same of any religious war, including the Crusades - the driving force was the schism between Protestants and Catholics.
- woooooo 4y ago
  Political and economic forces tend to be more important than sectarianism when the rubber meets the road. France joined the 30 years war on the protestant side despite being the most catholic country in Europe at the time.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  The Thirty Years’ War resulted in the creation of the modern Westphalian nation-state, I’d say that’s pretty political.

danjac 4y ago

> The bloodiest wars were not religious, or I should say, not traditionally religious The bloodiest war fought on European soil, right up until World War One, was the Thirty Years' War. The world wars' higher death toll can be attributed to 20th century technology; the Thirty Years War was fought with 17th century weapons yet still led to the death of 5-8 million people. And sure, while there were political motivations involved - you could say the same of any religious war, including the Crusades - the driving force was the schism between Protestants and Catholics.

woooooo 4y ago
Political and economic forces tend to be more important than sectarianism when the rubber meets the road. France joined the 30 years war on the protestant side despite being the most catholic country in Europe at the time.
Apocryphon 4y ago
The Thirty Years’ War resulted in the creation of the modern Westphalian nation-state, I’d say that’s pretty political.