AmStramGram
Devoted Cultist
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2022
- Messages
- 236
Please be careful with associating the Roman Catholic with exceptional "corruption and violence" as this point of view, which was especially prevalent in the 19th century and in the Anglo Saxon world (for obvious reasons), was largely the result of the mercyless propaganda wars between the Roman Catholics and Protestant Churches. It is simply not true. When one looks at historical facts, avoiding biases (as much as possible), he has to conclude that the situation was much more balanced.
A classical case is that of the Inquisition, usually associated with ruthless witch-hunts in the 16th and 17th century. Even touring around catholic countries like France, Spain or Italy, you'll encounter many so-called "Inquisition museums" displaying torture instruments, and images of poor ladies awaiting to be burned on the stake. But now, if you focus on statistics, or contemporary witnesses and so on, you'll notice that witch hunts were actually more prevalent in protestant lands like Germany, Scotland and America. The Salem trials, and its senseless slaugther, were not the result of a catholic persecution. King James 1st / VIth of he UK, was not a Catholic, but a devout protestant, and he so madly believed in witches, that he wrote a whole book about them. And was the so-called "Bowhead Saint", Major Thomas Weir, a ferocious covenanter and Presbyterian any less corrupt than, let's say Cesare Borgia ? Given his acts of cruelty and final demise, I doubt so.
Back to the witch-hunts, in many cases, it seems the catholic Inquisition had a milder approach to witch-hunting than its protestant local counter-parts. If you have a look at Carlo Ginzburg's works on the "benandanti" of Frioul, you'll see that most of these "sorcerers" were left to their own devices or considered as "simple men" by the Inquisitors. Why is it so ? Because Rome was more worried by rival churches & powers than by local deluded dreamers ... The Spanish inquisition was an exception ... but because it was actually almost under the direct control of the self styled "Catholic Kings" of Castille (earlier in history, you can find the same phenomenon with king Philippe le Bel's direct handling of heresy, as a political tool).
So let us not conclude hastily that any religion is more, or less corruption-prone than others ... Men are prone to "corruption". And they are very good at using religion to legitimize (or cover) their wrongdoings.
Religions link people together. It's actually one of the etymological explanation of the word religion (religio = "what links"). So where there is religion, there is politics. Where there is politics, there are power struggles and violence. The bigger, and less fragmented a religious movement is, the larger the stakes in political terms. So of course, you'll encounter corruption and violence in large religious groups. If these groups are monotheistic, with a claim to hold the only absolute truth (meaning all others are dangerous quacks and frauds), they'll store even more destructive potential. It then only takes an ambitious man to unleash almost unlimited destruction on his fellow humans, in the holy name of Truth and purification. And, to go back to the origin of this topic, back in 2012, it is certainly one of the causes of the success of Christianity and Islam (among countless other factors, such as the Roman empire's sponsorship).
Both religions took off with the backing of a strong political power (Rome for Christianity, and the Arab tribes for Islam). Both had an emphasis on detaining the ultimate truth, with any other religion being branded as either demonic (paganism) or out of date (Christianism invented the theory of a New Testament to distantiate itself from judaism, and Islam did the same to distantiate from Christianism). Both cultivated a kind of militant universalism that spurred them to spread, often through violent means. Try to convert to judaism, to check the difference !
There were rival beliefs, but quite often, the political powers supporting them were destroyed. Zoroastrism fell after the fall of the Sassanids. Indian Buddhism almost disappeared after the Muslims conquered northern India, destroying the Nalanda university on their way. India being divided into a mosaic of small states, none could really boost Hinduism to global preeminence (why would they want to ahieve such a goal, by the way ?). And China did not provide a good base for an expansionnist religion. As a matter of fact, Chinese officials, though they could have taoist or buddhist beliefs were above all Confucean. They were selected on their ability to discuss confucean topics. And apart from honouring one's ancestors, Confuceans were not driven by any hopes about the afterlife. As a matter of fact, Confucius once said : "We don't know much about life. What could we know about death ?". Hardly an asset to go spreading one's beliefs at the point of the sword.
Sorry, that was quite a long post. :-/
