Wars of Religion

[LuisDantas]

Being a pries and truly believing in God is not the same thing.You can't convince me that someone who truly believes in a higher power is capable of committing such acts.

I suppose I can't, if we are allowing to accept that some people have deluded themselves into believing that they believe in God - or are else lying outright.

I definitely _can_ however say that people commit all kinds of faults, up to and including huge attrocities, and justify themselves with their faith in God. Some of them seem to be quite sincere, if no doubt misguided. Quite a few harm themselves and their loved ones above all.

I can only wonder where have you met your believers and your atheists, honestly; your experience is so completely disconnected from mine that I might as well believe it was in Mars.

[LuisDantas]

But this doesn't seem to ring true in Mel's case imo. We have no indication that she was after power or a murderer before she came to Westeros and got caught up in Stannis' claim. I think she's more of an example of what happens when people are led to believe -even rightly- that some event will lead to total suffering skyrocketing just before the world ends, in which case a logical argument can be made for literally any action that seeks to prevent it.

How is that different from religious fanaticism exactly?

[LordBloodraven]

Thank you for actually discussing Westeros. Do you think one religion will win? and if so which?

Is it worth making a disctinction between Melisandre's Rahlooism and Thoros' R'hloorism? I feel like the latter has more chance to be perennized than the former which is more political, elitist, and rather "cultist". I don't think that there will be a war of religion. The High Sparrow has become a political stakeholder but I see him more losing and dying a very painful death or keeping his influence while the 7 Kingdoms are seceding. Apart from the Manderlys, there's no significant presence of the Seven in the North, so it will be hard for them to have a foot there. Since Mel has her own agenda and Stannis is likely going to die, I see her Rahlooism as a epiphenomenal event, that could have occurred only in the context of the WOT5K and Stannis's claim to the throne

[NotSoSilentSister]

Is it worth making a disctinction between Melisandre's Rahlooism and Thoros' R'hloorism? I feel like the latter has more chance to be perennized than the former which is more political, elitist, and rather "cultist". I don't think that there will be a war of religion. The High Sparrow has become a political stakeholder but I see him more losing and dying a very painful death or keeping his influence while the 7 Kingdoms are seceding. Apart from the Manderlys, there's no significant presence of the Seven in the North, so it will be hard for them to have a foot there. Since Mel has her own agenda and Stannis is likely going to die, I see her Rahlooism as a epiphenomenal event, that could have occurred only in the context of the WOT5K and Stannis's claim to the throne

Goods points. It may be that Mel is just a loose cannon (in a recent interview Martin confirmed that she had her own agenda - defenitely not sent by some authority like Morroquo), it may be that Rhollorism in general is a less monolithic affair than expected. Thoros right now is in a group who is in the Frey-killing-business, yet he never takes the opportunity to suggest burning one of them for the greater glory of Rhollor - you bet Mel would have jumped at the chance. Moqquoro however seems to belong to the "burn them" school of Rhollorism.

Based on no evidence whatsoever, I have a hunch that the Faith of the Seven will support Aegon. And I suspect that Aegon will crash and burn.

[Sand Snake No. 9]

We all know that ASOIAF is closely linked to The War of the Roses and generally Europe in the later middle ages.

I have a theory that apart from fractional warfare (e.g. Baratheon vs Lannister vs Targaryen) we may well see it develop in to a war of different religions much like the one that savaged Europe from 1618 - 1648.

The Thirty Years War as it is known (http://en.wikipedia....irty_Years'_War) killed thousands and lasted... well... erm... thirty years.

Now we have heard how the current conflict in Westeros was to last for many years to come, and that many people would die.

So do you agree with me that we may see the conflicts turn into more of a battle of religions. Rhollor vs Old Gods vs the Seven

Anybody agree?

Irri's Bear :eek:

I think it is GRRM's plan to have everything that can go wrong in Westeros go wrong before the Others arrive, that is, to have the universal crisis hit a society in complete chaos. So yes, I think there will be religious conflict, certainly GRRM has written the background for such.

[SerStinger]

You are still oversimplifying. You could easily say that religion is responsible for modern music, art, and the university system as well. Just because you are opposed to religion doesn't make all the smears against it you are posting correct. As multiple posters here have pointed out, even if you accept religion as an occasional primary reason for war (and I think when you look at the demographics in muslim countries, you'll see that the issue is too many aimless men between 16-30), 70% is still ridiculous, and you are creating an entirely one-sided narrative. Do you know how many German, Polish, French, Danish, and other Christians saved jews during ww2 due to their faith? Have you heard of Dietrich Bonhoffer? Look at the history of most charitable organizations Many of them were started for religious intent.

Religion is the inspiration behind much of great art. But, art would exist without religion. People who have saved Jews would still save them even if they were not religious. Charity organizations would continue to help people even if they are not religious. Those who fly plains into building wouldn't do that if they were not. Pope would not go to an AIDS ridden country to preach against condoms if he was not religious. So, the good things that religion has is not exclusive to religion, but its evil aspects are.

Most religious people are not bad people. That has three reasons. One, most of them are ignorant what their religion really entails. I was a Muslim until I actually researched Islam myself. Two, they are cowards. Three, they are good humans, and their humanity overpowers their religious beliefs.

I'm not oversimplifying anything. I see the situation with all its complexity. But my judgement is sound and simple, because it is true.

[Naathi Prince]

Religion is the inspiration behind much of great art. But, art would exist without religion. People who have saved Jews would still save them even if they were not religious. Charity organizations would continue to help people even if they are not religious. Those who fly plains into building wouldn't do that if they were not. Pope would not go to an AIDS ridden country to preach against condoms if he was not religious. So, the good things that religion has is not exclusive to religion, but its evil aspects are.

Most religious people are not bad people. That has three reasons. One, most of them are ignorant what their religion really entails. I was a Muslim until I actually researched Islam myself. Two, they are cowards. Three, they are good humans, and their humanity overpowers their religious beliefs.

I'm not oversimplifying anything. I see the situation with all its complexity. But my judgement is sound and simple, because it is true.

war would exist without religion too, quite obviously.

[SerStinger]

war would exist without religion too, quite obviously.

Yes it would. Religion is not the cause of all evil in the world. But that means nothing. It's like saying, hey, let's not arrest this murderer because there will be another murderer who will kill someone. There would be evil in the world without religion, but much less. Many religion-exclusive evils would be destroyed though. Like people flying plains into buildings.

[Castel]

How is that different from religious fanaticism exactly?

Your argument wasn't about religious fanaticism, it was that religion provided an excuse, which implies that Mel had the incentive or desire to commit violence and murder pre-R'hllorism and was using her religion as a pretext. I think that in this case, the R'hllorism came first and the violence followed.

Concerning Westeros, it's a very interesting question. So far Westeros has been characterized by a frankly astonishing amount of religious tolerance - even interfaith marriages seem to be no problem. The dominant Faith of the Seven has not shown any of the missionary zeal which often characterizes monotheistic/manichean religions. Even in times when the Faith had their own militia the people in Winterfell apparently had no trouble keeping the old Gods

Well,the north is the only group to remain culturally distinct as well, and I think that has less to do with tolerance on the part of the faith and more to do with the fact that they were incapable of forcing their religion and culture on the First Men in that area. Everywhere else believes in the Faith. Then came the Targaryens who I think could have forced a lot of things and chose not to.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Everywhere else believes in the Faith. Then came the Targaryens who I think could have forced a lot of things and chose not to.

Well, the Ironborn also still worship their own Gods, but you could say that argument about the North just as much applies here. It's easy to see why no one would bother converting the Ironborn. But, I don't know, if I remember correctly, in one of the book there's talk of "a few Godswoods south of the Neck" - thatspeaks against particularly thorough religious prosecution. I mean, even King's Landing still has a Godswood, in a secularized function, but still... that looks like more than 'grudging acceptance' to me.

Another thing: Dominant cultures with missionary ambitions typically only accept that they cannot be forced on certain people after unsuccessfully trying for a while. That unsuccessful trying usually leaves enough bad blood to last the opposing sides for a couple of generations and results in a coexistence a lot uneasier than what we seem to have right now in Westeros. I conclude that missionary ambitions are not an integral component of the Faith of the Seven.

[Castel]

Well, the Ironborn also still worship their own Gods, but you could say that argument about the North just as much applies here. It's easy to see why no one would bother converting the Ironborn. But, I don't know, if I remember correctly, in one of the book there's talk of "a few Godswoods south of the Neck" - thatspeaks against particularly thorough religious prosecution. I mean, even King's Landing still has a Godswood, in a secularized function, but still... that looks like more than 'grudging acceptance' to me.

Another thing: Dominant cultures with missionary ambitions typically only accept that they cannot be forced on certain people after unsuccessfully trying for a while. That unsuccessful trying usually leaves enough bad blood to last the opposing sides for a couple of generations and results in a coexistence a lot uneasier than what we seem to have right now in Westeros. I conclude that missionary ambitions are not an integral component of the Faith of the Seven.

Except I could argue that they did try unsuccessfully for a long while. I think there may have been a missionary component to the wars of the Andals against the First Men, didn't the first Andals mark the land with the Seven-Pointed Star? And they mostly succeeded, but in the places they didn't there seems to be a much more nationalistic people than there are down south, possibly as backlash against incursions on their territory. And it helps that the wars probably took place a long time ago since at some point most people realized that the North was hard to attack and not worth taking. Bad blood may well have existed between the North and the rest of the world, it's just had a few millenia to fade.

I wonder if the nature of the Old Gods also helped prevent any real persecution. Because you're right, some of them are left alone. It seems to me that a religion with no head, no real rites or structure would be less of a threat or an affront to any Andal religious heads.

[Ser Leftwich]

I think it is GRRM's plan to have everything that can go wrong in Westeros go wrong before the Others arrive, that is, to have the universal crisis hit a society in complete chaos. So yes, I think there will be religious conflict, certainly GRRM has written the background for such.

:agree: , and well put.

And not only Westeros, as there seems to be a R'hllorist uprising potentially happening in Essos, which could make things interesting there as well.

[NotSoSilentSister]

Missionary ambition might have been a component of the conquest, yes. It's a bit of a chicken egg thing, the Andals discovered their passion for the seven right in time for getting some heavenly support for the conquest of Westeros. I just thought how, in conflicts when religious disaggrement is truly the driving force, the resentments tend to keep simmering long after both parties have realized the futility of fighting each other, but you are right that I did not consider that Westeros operates on a different time scale.

I wonder if the nature of the Old Gods also helped prevent any real persecution. Because you're right, some of them are left alone. It seems to me that a religion with no head, no real rites or structure would be less of a threat or an affront to any Andal religious heads.

Good point.

[Naathi Prince]

Yes it would. Religion is not the cause of all evil in the world. But that means nothing. It's like saying, hey, let's not arrest this murderer because there will be another murderer who will kill someone. There would be evil in the world without religion, but much less. Many religion-exclusive evils would be destroyed though. Like people flying plains into buildings.

you still don't get it, but whatever, enjoy your prejudices

[SerStinger]

you still don't get it, but whatever, enjoy your prejudices

"I always know that I have won the argument when the other side resorts to insults." - Christopher Hitchens :)

[Naathi Prince]

"I always know that I have won the argument when the other side resorts to insults." - Christopher Hitchens :)

or perhaps that you're just being extremely stubborn. Other people have discussed this topic already and explained the holes in your logic, and you didn't bother to respond to any of it. Do you realize that wanting to get rid of religion is in and of itself a religious motivation?

[SerStinger]

or perhaps that you're just being extremely stubborn. Other people have discussed this topic already and explained the holes in your logic, and you didn't bother to respond to any of it. Do you realize that wanting to get rid of religion is in and of itself a religious motivation?

I have answered to them to best of my understanding, I am sorry if my answers were not convincing to you. But the truth is, the defenders of religion want me to defend things I have not claimed. I have never said all religious people are evil, I have never said all evil is caused by religion, I have never said all atheists are good, I have never said religion causes no good. So when people tell me "but not all religious people are bad and Stalin was an atheist and if religion is gone there would still be evil in the world", well I agree with all that, but they are not holes in MY logic. I'm saying "religion as an ideology and an institution is evil (regardless of the people who believe in it), and causes a lot of harm, and a world without it is a better world."

[Naathi Prince]

I have answered to them to best of my understanding, I am sorry if my answers were not convincing to you. But the truth is, the defenders of religion want me to defend things I have not claimed. I have never said all religious people are evil, I have never said all evil is caused by religion, I have never said all atheists are good, I have never said religion causes no good. So when people tell me "but not all religious people are bad and Stalin was an atheist and if religion is gone there would still be evil in the world", well I agree with all that, but they are not holes in MY logic. I'm saying "religion as an ideology and an institution is evil (regardless of the people who believe in it), and causes a lot of harm, and a world without it is a better world."

no, you just made the unsubstantiated claim that it causes 70% of the wars. Institutions in and of themselves aren't good or evil, its the people who run them that make them so.

[Lady Sansa Stark]

no, you just made the unsubstantiated claim that it causes 70% of the wars. Institutions in and of themselves aren't good or evil, its the people who run them that make them so.

Exactly. Religion in itself is actually good. Love your neighbor, your enemy, take care of other people etc. It's the people that ruin its practice who make religion looks bad.

Take christianity for example. Recently, a lot of abuse cases have come up, which happened some time ago. Some people blame religion for that, while the priestswere the ones who committed the crimes. Not because God asked them to do or because the Bible told them to.

Or the islam. If the Koran really stated that you have to kill as many non-believers as possible, do you really think the world would still exist? Heck, muslims are even killing other muslims, but that's not what the Koran says. It's what some people make of it. Use an excuse to achieve something else.

It's the same in Westeros. I think that the Faith itself is as good as it gets, but the Sparrows are kinda ruining it for themselves. Same with R'hlorr, the Lord of Light. I don't know much of it, but there seems to be a huge difference between Melisandre and Thoros. Melisandre is killing people all the time to achieve whatever she wants to achieve, while Thoros uses its faith in some other way. A better way. He even revived Beric Dondarrion 6 or 7 times so he could continue with the BWB.

[Castel]

Missionary ambition might have been a component of the conquest, yes. It's a bit of a chicken egg thing, the Andals discovered their passion for the seven right in time for getting some heavenly support for the conquest of Westeros. I just thought how, in conflicts when religious disaggrement is truly the driving force, the resentments tend to keep simmering long after both parties have realized the futility of fighting each other, but you are right that I did not consider that Westeros operates on a different time scale.

Good point.

Indeed.Which leads right back to the main problem of this thread. If you tie religious matters into your secular power structure you can't really seperate them from each other. It's quite possible to be both religiously and practically motivated.

no, you just made the unsubstantiated claim that it causes 70% of the wars. Institutions in and of themselves aren't good or evil, its the people who run them that make them so.

Some institutions are more slanted towards "evil" than others simply by their very nature. One could even make the argument that said nature weeds out everyone not willing to play the game the way they want.

Also:

First off, 70% was not an accurate number.

By SerStinger himself.