When, in human history, has going out and killing a bunch of people helped win an ideological argument as to whose brand of religion is "better"? What does engaging in acts of mass murder accomplish as far as persuading people that the cause of the murderers is right and just?
(I'll leave the snark to others about how differently the Murdoch-led media and their fellow-travellers would be handling this if the Norwegian murderer was a olive skinned Muslim immigrant rather than the actual killer: A blond-haired conservative Christian fundamentalist.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
1209 AD. Beziers. "Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius".
But short of genocide of the "unbelievers", you're right. Even the Muslims didn't forcibly convert their subjects at gunpoint when they conquered a vast empire from India to Spain. They simply made it very advantageous via tax laws to do so, and the majority of people shrugged and converted because, frankly, most people just don't give a bleep about religion.
- Badtux the Non-genocidal Penguin
The genocide of the Cathars comes to mind, but I agree with where you are going with this.
What offlogic said. I don't disagree as an ideal, an abstract, as a fuzzy warm kitten of how I wish it was.
But, of course, there's the Cathars. The Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish defeat of the Aztec and Inca. Joseph Stalin. Mao and the Great Cultural Revolution. The US Civil War in some instances.
Today on the Rez, for that matter, the kids turn their caps around backward and listen to rap.
But it was a good notion, so long as you don't allow yourself to believe it.
But those are examples of conquering and extermination, not of persuasion. And if you think that the Civil War was such an example, while it did put an end to slavery, it did not put an end to the political doctrine which enabled slavery to exist. You need only look at the current version of the GOP to see that; the party has been nearly completely taken over by the modern Confederates. And they are out to destroy the country as a economic power.
I don't think the objective of dramatic acts of violence is to convert the onlookers. The objective is to advertise an ideology that legitimizes violence. The ones who flock to the banner are other adolescent males who feel powerless and want to lash out. Think James Dean: "Whattaya got?"
Joe
I think it goes deeper than advertizing. It is about acceptance of ideals so bizarre that the only way to show that someone seriously believes the crap is to show everyone how serious it is.
And yes I see the circular logic. That's one of the things that makes it bizarre.
Post a Comment