Wars of Religion

[Naathi Prince]

Not equally dangerous, actually. Far less, at least in the absence of something similar to "God is with us" to convince people to follow blindly.

That is arguable. Personally, I think religion is rarely a cause, but it often (at least in its abrahamic forms) aggravates conflicts greatly.

fanaticism is fanaticism, but i agree with your point about aggravation, I usually use the fire example, its not the spark, but it can be an effective fan or fuel.

[galit90]

Regarding the OP, paganism survived in Russia well into the 20th Century because Russia is very big and very cold - the population was too spread out and remote to control. The same logic I think can be applied to the tolerance for the Old Gods in Westeros.

Having said that, i think any future nationalist conflict in Westeros will have religious underpinnings, whether that is a war between the South and North, or between Dany and everyone else, because I don't think Westerosi society separates the secular and the religious. i.e. defending one's cultural identity means defending one's religion. So, in that light, I think a religious war in Westeros is inevitable.

[Castel]

Not equally dangerous, actually. Far less, at least in the absence of something similar to "God is with us" to convince people to follow blindly.

That is arguable. Personally, I think religion is rarely a cause, but it often (at least in its abrahamic forms) aggravates conflicts greatly.

Not to mention that fanatical versions of various political ideologies depend on logic and on some level practicality and so can be proven to be false or inefficient or outdated, unlike religion which revels in it's irrationality. Irrationality that makes it bulletproof.

[galit90]

Not equally dangerous, actually. Far less, at least in the absence of something similar to "God is with us" to convince people to follow blindly.

That is arguable. Personally, I think religion is rarely a cause, but it often (at least in its abrahamic forms) aggravates conflicts greatly.

I completely agree with you. As far as I can tell, most tyrants work within a religious structure, some just choose to replace "God" with "Wise leader," while the expectation of blind, irrational devotion remains the same. I think it is this expectation that is most dangerous, and I think it cannot be enforced outside of a basically theological political system (again, replace God with Stalin, and heaven with utopia).

Not to mention that fanatical versions of various political ideologies depend on logic and on some level practicality and so can be proven to be false or inefficient or outdated, unlike religion which revels in it's irrationality. Irrationality that makes it bulletproof.

I'm not sure that political ideologies can be proven to be false or inefficient. At least I can't currently think of a historical example where that happened. Governments that base themselves in ideology can be overthrown or defeated, but then again so can theocracies.

[LuisDantas]

Do you know what seems to make the difference, in a nutshell, Castel?

A political utopia depends on having faith on actual politicians. It self-corrects to an extent.

Promises about a paradise (or threats about a hell) in another life are far more fertile a terrain for abuse.

[Naathi Prince]

Not to mention that fanatical versions of various political ideologies depend on logic and on some level practicality and so can be proven to be false or inefficient or outdated, unlike religion which revels in it's irrationality. Irrationality that makes it bulletproof.

both communism and calvinism were born in universities. I really don't see the irrationality argument here, after all, people still practice these political belief systems that most of society has long considered untenable.

[galit90]

Do you know what seems to make the difference, in a nutshell, Castel?

A political utopia depends on having faith on actual politicians. It self-corrects to an extent.

Promises about a paradise (or threats about a hell) in another life are far more fertile a terrain for abuse.

I can't agree with you here. Any political power self-corrects - otherwise it won't stay in power for long, whether it is ideological, religious, humanist, etc. There would have been no reformation if Christianity did not have to self-correct to stay relevant. It's just that sometimes the process of self-correction leads to the downfall of the regime, as in the case of the Soviet Union, and sometimes it doesn't (as in the case of, let's say, China, or, again, Christianity).

[LuisDantas]

I can't agree with you here. Any political power self-corrects - otherwise it won't stay in power for long, whether it is ideological, religious, humanist, etc. There would have been no reformation if Christianity did not have to self-correct to stay relevant. It's just that sometimes the process of self-correction leads to the downfall of the regime, as in the case of the Soviet Union, and sometimes it doesn't (as in the case of, let's say, China, or, again, Christianity).

It sounds like you saying that religious-motivated politics isn't quite completely spared from reality checks, which I guess I agree, but sort of is my point as well.

[galit90]

It sounds like you saying that religious-motivated politics isn't quite completely spared from reality checks, which I guess I agree, but sort of is my point as well.

What I'm trying to say is that religious-motivated politics are no more and no less spared from reality checks than any other governmental systems. From what I understood, you were arguing that religion is more dangerous than any other ideology because, since it derives its power from an irrational faith in a supreme being whose existence cannot be proven, it does not need to concern itself with reality. That's not true, I think. A religious figure that tries to ignore the reality of the political situation inevitably ends up like first high septon - dead :)

[jarl the climber]

What I'm trying to say is that religious-motivated politics are no more and no less spared from reality checks than any other governmental systems. From what I understood, you were arguing that religion is more dangerous than any other ideology because, since it derives its power from an irrational faith in a supreme being whose existence cannot be proven, it does not need to concern itself with reality. That's not true, I think. A religious figure that tries to ignore the reality of the political situation inevitably ends up like first high septon - dead :)

A religious person would consider their beleifs to be perfectly rational and their idea of the divine to be provable, to someone with the Faith to see.Religions that are not concerned with the actual human condition of their flock do not have much relavence. This is why the Faith of the 7 has become radicalised. Thier followers are looking for protection and the throne and the Lords have failed them, some have gone over to Thoros and his Red God its in reaction to this that the Faiith remilitarized. It seems completely logical and reasonable

[LuisDantas]

What I'm trying to say is that religious-motivated politics are no more and no less spared from reality checks than any other governmental systems.

If so then I must disagree. It is self-evidently not the case.

From what I understood, you were arguing that religion is more dangerous than any other ideology

Not really. It is often not even a true ideology. But religious fanatics are very dangerous indeed, and remarkably resistant to mending their ways. Where else do you find people taking pride of their challenge to facts?

because, since it derives its power from an irrational faith in a supreme being whose existence cannot be proven, it does not need to concern itself with reality. That's not true, I think. A religious figure that tries to ignore the reality of the political situation inevitably ends up like first high septon - dead :)

Not always, as shown by both Iranian and US politics among others. And they always bring many people down with them anyway.

[galit90]

A religious person would consider their beleifs to be perfectly rational and their idea of the divine to be provable, to someone with the Faith to see.Religions that are not concerned with the actual human condition of their flock do not have much relavence. This is why the Faith of the 7 has become radicalised. Thier followers are looking for protection and the throne and the Lords have failed them, some have gone over to Thoros and his Red God its in reaction to this that the Faiith remilitarized. It seems completely logical and reasonable

I see a contradiction in terms here, I don't think it would be called Faith if it was rational and provable

[EgoistMusketeer]

REMOVE RELIGION FROM HISTORY AND 70% OF THE WARS AND TORTURES AND EVILS WOULD BE GONE, BECAUSE THE MOTIVE BEHIND THEM IS RELIGION AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE.

I cant tell if this was sarcasm...

either way, completely false, 100 percent of wars are founded in economics, everything else is scapegoating and naivety.

[Peasant Rebel Leader]

I cant tell if this was sarcasm...

either way, completely false, 100 percent of wars are founded in economics, everything else is scapegoating and naivety.

I can't tell if this was sarcasm...

either way, completely false, 100 percent of wars are founded in a very complex set of factors that are not easily summed up in one word, everything else is scapegoating and naivety.

Sorry, couldn't resist ;)

As for the opening post (I only read the first and last page), there's simply not enough time for such a conflict to escalate, and the faith of Rh'ollor hasn't spread enough in Westeros. Now if we include some conflict between the faith and the maesters as religion (since magic might fall somewhere in that line), I could see something like that...

[A...]

Now if we include some conflict between the faith and the maesters as religion (since magic might fall somewhere in that line), I could see something like that...

This doesn't sound realistic since the maesters don't really have any army to speak of and are besides so fantastically adept at toading that they would find a way to worm their way out of a war. (Even if the faceless men are in their employ, there aren't nearly enough of those to fight a war)

Much more likely the Faith will fight Stannis, who worships R'hollor than a bunch of glorified doctors. This might lead Stannis away from the path of the red god, thus incuring the wrath of Mel and a loss of a fire god's benevolence in a fight with a horde of white walkers. (Basically: facepalm)

[Peasant Rebel Leader]

Well, war is the wrong word here. These sort of conflicts start with civil unrests and then escalate. I can totally see some septons or country preachers instigating the smallfolk against religion, more so than against the "Red God", because that one doesn't have any real followers in Westeros. But if the maesters or some part of the order starts to use more magic and more openly, I think scapegoating is possible, Again, not a war, since war needs two organized sides and there are none. But tension is rising and you have to base those on the factions present in Westeros. The Stannis-Lannister war is mainly a political one, he can't push the religious side too much since he needs allies and those aren't followers of the Red God by definition...

[Naathi Prince]

How has this thread not been closed? lol.