Religion
Related: About this forumReligion has been causing conflict for over 2000 years, say scientists
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/religion-has-been-causing-conflict-for-over-2000-years-say-scientists-a6782631.htmlIn fact, researchers from the University of Colorado and the University of Central Florida believe it may have had the opposite effect.
After several years of field research in the Rio Verde valley and the Valley of Oaxaca on Mexicos Pacific coast, Professor Arthur A.Joyce and Associate Professor Sarah Barber found that local religious rituals helped to forge strong small scale community links which delayed the development of large state institutions.
In the period they were studying - from approximately 700BC to 250AD - they found elites came to dominate religious life and controlled the connection between communities and their gods - leading to conflict with traditional community leaders.
edhopper
(33,589 posts)that's when the conflict stated.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)On another quote, but someone from his era had a great one: Man will not be free until the last priest is killed by the last brick falling from the last church.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)It goes more like this:
"Man will not be free until the last tyrant is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)Your original is better than my mangled translation.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)Including a reference work published in 2000, which means it's not too contaminated by internet misattributions:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GfC0TDkJJNgC&pg=PA340&lpg=PA340&dq=the+first+rascal+who+met+the+first+fool&source=bl&ots=uNElyFBwFG&sig=89N7Lkzc9s_wmDlNle82rHYw9J0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinhfKowvLJAhVIaxQKHXa2CPoQ6AEIPzAF#v=onepage&q=the%20first%20rascal%20who%20met%20the%20first%20fool&f=false
Plenty of sayings were attributed to famous people without foundation before the internet, of course, but there is a chance it's true.
SCantiGOP
(13,871 posts)While he was a great intellect and wit, it seems that he is given credit for a lot of statements that were not from him.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Some of my favorite quotes:
"Zee Mad Dogs, Zee Englishmen, and Joe Cocker"
"My night! I coulda taken Wilson apart! So what happens? He gets the title shot outdoors on the ballpark and what do I get? A one-way ticket to Palooka-ville! You was my brother, Charley, you shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit so I wouldn't have to take them dives for the short-end money."
"Well, if you like burgers give 'em a try sometime. I can't usually get 'em myself because my girlfriend's a vegetarian which pretty much makes me a vegetarian. But I do love the taste of a good burger. Mm-mm-mm. You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France?"
"I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner?"
No, they weren't Churchill quotes, but still... he was a brilliant, witty man.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)They attributed it to the emperor, who was very anti religion, and was trying to unite the galaxy under an enlightened rule. Fast forward 10,000 years and he's now the god-emperor who everyone worships after his demise.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)edhopper
(33,589 posts)artist is.
[IMG][/IMG]
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)It's at least 3300. Probably more, but Akhenaten is the earliest that rings an immediate bell. The Akkadian/Sumerian thing was more territorial.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)I am over 3' tall, but that says little useful about my height, or very very little about my lack thereof
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)A new archaeological find in Botswana shows that our ancestors in Africa engaged in ritual practice 70,000 years ago 30,000 years earlier than the oldest finds in Europe. This sensational discovery strengthens Africas position as the cradle of modern man.
What that article says is that elites who gained state control of religon and those elites were the cause of conflict.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The discovery is the oldest evidence of some form of organized religion, though Neanderthal's in Europe have also left evidence of religious practices.
edhopper
(33,589 posts)it's the wicked smile, because "worship the python" has a sexual connotation.
As in, as the Donald would say, schlong.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Particularly when we go full monty.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)Looks like people were the gods. Something tells me that they exploited their position.
Seems to have lead to a huge state of Mayans and Aztecs that would be a larger state compared to Europe's many states into which Europe devolved into anyway.
Perhaps its the fault of the summary, but I don't see anything justifying the headline.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Religious conflict occurs where religion is present, obviously. This doesn't mean religion causes religious conflict.
Scientific study would also show that automobile accidents are caused by automobiles. Those damn cars! Get them off the road, they are killing people!
edhopper
(33,589 posts)or do you dismiss mechanical failure.
It is also the very nature of automobiles that there will be accidents.
Just as it is the nature of religion that there will be conflict.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)for collisions, we understand that poor driving is the culprit. We can't "blame" an inanimate object, this is the blind spot. Religion isn't inherently dangerous, it must be directed. It is often abused by those who wield it for power, which is not the same thing at all.
While some cars fail mechanically, we generally don't stop using all cars. We repair them or we discard them individually. Hell, we break them down into usable parts or recycle them, they all have value.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You seem to be arguing that religion cannot ever be the cause of a problem, and is never to blame for conflict. Is that an incorrect observation on my part?
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)religion as a whole is based on a faulty premise enabled by a blind spot.
I parse the difference between behavior of some religious people and Religion itself. The distinction there is often overlooked. As it happens, I do the same for science.
I do not hold science accountable for the unethical behavior demonstrated by some scientists, such as eugenics, testing on humans, medical research on the bodies enslaved people (women in particular), and other atrocities done in the name of "the advancement of humankind." The exploitation of indigenous cultures and dominion over the planet itself also comes to mind. Not to mention crackpot "scientists" who are not practicing true scientific standards at all. They don't represent science itself.
Therefore, science is neither ethical nor unethical. Religion is no different in this regard.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Science does not dictate or mandate the murder of those who oppose, reject or ridicule it. Religion, in some cases, does. Many people do many terrible things precisely because their religion tells them to. Science does not claim ultimate authority from the creator of the universe. Religion does.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)understand how belief works. Religious dogma tells one to do a lot of things, it's up to each individual to determine which ones to do. Not to mention that so much is open to interpretation.
A cruel person will find cruelty in it, a kind person will find kindness in it.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Well certainly some believers in these parts are certainly fond of doing that. You however are the first one I've seen to endorse the prcess. Congratulations.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)what's right to do and what's wrong to do, why would anyone need religion or the dictates of some supreme being as a moral guide in the first place? The way you paint it, religion just offers you a mishmash of good and bad things to choose from, but only human reason and decency can decide properly which ones to actually do.
When it's put that way, wouldn't you agree that basing any kind of morality on religious dogma is foolish and unnecessary?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and *ta da* leads to conflict when different people pick different parts of the holy book to "cherry pick."
tblue37
(65,409 posts)Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion <emphasis added>.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that are found in the foundational documents of religions like the bible or koran, are those the people? Or the religion?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The conquest of the new world was very much religious orientated, and where we get Papal Bull from (Aside from every day straight outta Rome) As for ethics, religion is often used as a foil, that science doesn't deal with ethics, religion does (Which is another load of bull, papal or otherwise) There is ethics in science, and religions almost always promote murdering your neighbor, or informing them of their future in a pit of fire.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Religion comes in a poor third at best.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And they literally just made Sera a saint, and he was all about genocide in the lord's name.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)The Conquistadors, Cortes, de Soto, Pizarro and others, were all about power and wealth. The men like Magellan and others were all about trade routes and empire. The Papal bull dividing the world among Spain and Portugal was a political document at its core. Conversion played its role but didn't drive the Conquest even if it used the opportunity to expand.
edhopper
(33,589 posts)are more Corvairs and Edsels than they are Hondas.
And perhaps, now that we see what the individual, gas powered car is doing to the planet, we should stop using all cars.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)I see no value in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
rug
(82,333 posts)From the responses in this thread, you'd think the first thought of the supernatural led to homicide, as opposed to the violence over resources. It's as if they'd never read Marx.
elleng
(130,974 posts)US vs THEM.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)It's also a vehicle to promote the exact opposite.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)They found it divided people and promoted conflict.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)and humility encourages one to live quietly. You don't often see humanitarians bragging and making public displays of their greatness. There's no possible way to get an accurate measure when so much happens under the surface. You cannot measure what goes on in a person's heart and mind, conscience is invisible, no matter how great the technology or clean the methodolgy.
Besides, you find what you seek. I could probably find a study that counters that finding if I were inclined to do so. Neither study would be reliable as "fact" anyway because people are simply too complex.
Lastly, humans are not rational machines and never have been. Humanity cannot be fully nor effectively studied in rational terms, no scope is large enough or can go deep enough.
Finally, because I have other things to do so I'm wrapping this up - if you don't like religion, don't be religious.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm sorry, I can't help you with that. Perhaps you could contact the researchers for more information.
Regarding your final line, I'd be happy to leave it at that... if the religious would stop trying to ruin things for the rest of us.
rug
(82,333 posts)Meh, you probably would.
Cartoonist
(7,317 posts)In an other thread that seeks to refute that. The writer even knows G.Khan's motives.
rug
(82,333 posts)This is the headline put out by the university:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2015/12/21/religion-and-politics-led-social-tension-and-conflict-2000-years-ago
If you are in fact interested in the causes of social violence - and not simply posting headlines that apparently denounce religion - read Marx.
- snip -
Therefore, mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation. In broad outlines we can designate the Asiatic, the ancient, the feudal, and the modern bourgeois modes of production as so many progressive epochs in the economic formation of society. The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation constitutes, therefore, the closing chapter of the prehistoric stage of human society.
Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859).
Leontius
(2,270 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Wait a minute, that's right, THEY DIDN'T.
Nice attempt at a straw man though. Happy Solstice, Leontius, however you choose to celebrate it!
rug
(82,333 posts)So, trotsky, what are the other predominant forces at work when it comes to social violence?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)I thought it was perhaps some kind of weird salt fetish.
rug
(82,333 posts)Leontius
(2,270 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Religion has been causing conflict for over 2000 years, say scientists
No, what they are saying is in one area of Mexico during one specific era, there was conflict between religious elites and traditional community leaders.
This article is mis-titled and poorly written. There is no validation in the article for the 2000-year assertion.