3 ms·
As someone who somewhat agrees with what you said, your one sentence makes it look like a terrible argument. Rome was fine with you worshiping pretty much any
by boomboomsubban 3y ago
As someone who somewhat agrees with what you said, your one sentence makes it look like a terrible argument.
Rome was fine with you worshiping pretty much any god, so long as you put them under Jupiter. In a way that's religious tolerance, yet it also led to them going terrible things to the Jews and later the Christians, plus many now largely forgotten cults.
Christianity was actually somewhat similar for a while, they were fairly fine with you worshiping your pagan god if you could call them a saint and you accepted Jesus. And their acceptance of pagan rituals led to much of what we consider Christmas.
Neither were truly tolerant, but both could be fairly lax if you dressed things up correctly. Plus both had periods of greater tolerance and intolerance.
- Aloha 3y agoNo disagreement - my point was that the adoption of Christianity all at once as the state faith, reduced religious tolerance, particularly in the early years. But yeah that was part of what I was getting at - but I kinda just responded with my first thoughts off the cuff. My broader point was that its very hard to have a multi-language, multi-ethnic, continent spanning empire - while also having a nascent single religion that ignores local customs. Eventually tolerance under the new faith evolved to be similar to the old, but it was a process.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]