ITR, I’m not backtracking at all. I stand behind every word I’ve written. Unfortunately it’s not clear if that matters at all, because you have completely mischaracterized everything I’ve said. I feel like I would be rising to some kind of bait if I parsed my post for you; it’s clear enough, so I can only assume your misrepresentation of it is intentional, meant to get a rise out of me. I have enough on my plate engaging with people who are willing to debate in good faith. So you’ll understand if I stop responding to you until you show some willingness to address what you must know I actually said, instead of disingenuously decontextualizing this word or that in order to divert the actual discussion to some elaborate straw construction built for your own amusement.
The passage is not about “compulsory submission”, but about the inevitable fact that following this new cult will cause strife - as those who don’t follow it will turn against those who do. It isn’t an injunction for those following the cult to put the rest to the sword.
At least, that’s what appears to be the more reasonable interpretation to this non-Christian.
Again, this is faulty logic. Societies everywhere engaged in pogroms and inquisitions, and the connection between that and the actual content of the particular religion or ideology they are allegedly committing the atrocities in the name of, and the pogrom or inquisition, is often trivial or non-existent. As pointed out upthread, pogroms and inquisitions have in fact ostensibly been held in the name of atheism - which, as we all acknowledge, is an absurdity on its face. In fact, such atrocities were held to support the Stalinist state, and atheism was just the convenient excuse.
In most such cases, the actual motives of the persecutors are mixed - they come from a desire to dominate, or to eliminate undesireably focuses of resistence to a ruling class, or from what amounts to a class or ethnic struggle. The actual content of the ideology can be, and often is, totally irrelevant - that’s how you get Buddhist monks participating in ethnic cleansing. It is in spite of, not because of, Buddhist philosophy.
Interpreted narrowly, this is implausible, because Communist rule in most places during most times was not genocidal. That’s not a defense of Communism: it merely observes that eliminationism isn’t intrinsic to Communism (though abuse of human rights most probably is).
Plausible, but not demonstrated. No worries though: my point is that none of us appear to have come across a fully developed theory of the origins of genocide. (I’ve ordered a textbook that I hope to skim over.)
My hypothesis is that Communists face a reality problem: their policies depend upon changing human psychology and when the policies fail spectacularly (for largely separate reasons), there’s a strong tendency towards scapegoating and infighting. Strongmen do well during such periods of instability.
But heck, I can’t even rule out a variant of Shodan’s hypothesis. We all walk around with a moral framework in our heads (separate from but not exclusive to a set of moral inclinations.) Clear away the moral framework suddenly and all manner of nastiness tends to flood out. It can take a while for the inclinations to re-assert themselves. It’s not my favored explanation though.
Another possibility could involve a restricted comfort zone leading to an elaborate set of filters applied towards positions that trigger cognitive dissonance. It’s easier and therefore more satisfying for some to attack bad arguments that bear a superficial similarity to better arguments. Not that the OP presents an unassailable position (as you are aware): it suffers from the possibility of confirmation bias and you’ve conceded (actively) that one person’s experience doesn’t imply a universal.
Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction - sounds almost like a “how to” guide. :eek:
More seriously: my hypothesis is that anyone possessing of sufficient arrogance and self-righteousness, and not restrained by conventional, individualistic notions of morality, and possessed of nearly unlimited power over others, is likely to end up killing people for the good of society as a whole. This goes for religious and non-religious people alike.
In the case of communist atheists murdering priests in Russia, it is pretty easy to see how that could happen. Priests represent the backwards, dark-ages, feudal mentality that has to be eliminated if Russia is to progress. Moreover, priests are likely to infect and encourage others in their backwardness. Therefore, for the good of the state, which is for the good of humanity as a whole, they must die if they will not recant - same as any other group whose identity or ideology is likely to impede soviet progress (“kulacks”, Ukrainian nationalists, etc.).
I hypothesize that fear of counter-revolution or paranoia about the same is a necessary component. That doesn’t match Hitler too well: I’m not sure about Stalin or Mao. But it might explain Pol Pot or the Rwanda situation a little better. I figure that truly unlimited power implies social stability which makes genocide unnecessary. But I’m not sure that jives very well with the Nazis. Anyway, that’s what I was thinking about trying to sort out.
Well, fair enough. I see it as an exhortation for the followers to turn against those who aren’t followers, i.e., almost exactly the opposite of what you see. “If your father says you can’t follow Jesus…leave his house. If your mother forbids you to worship Jesus…disobey her, because Jesus is more important.” It seems to me to be a direct dismissal of the commandment regarding honoring one’s parents.
It urges followers to recruit others, without regard for what those others’ families might have to say. “Split society apart at the seams, for Jesus is more important.”
The same guy who said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s has set his claim upon the souls of all men and women, and is preaching a kind of Holy War.
(The “War” metaphor is made more explicit in Ephesians, among other places.)
I think one of the problems that developed in dogma was that Jesus was speaking to Stan-called-Loretta and the Judean People’s Front. His message was prettymuch tailored to the folks around him, so what you are seeing is a kind of “convert our people as best you can, but those Romans, well, just keep your head down around them.” Which others later attempted to expand in scope to all of humanity. And it kind of does not work all that well outside its original cultural context.
Well, there have been papers written on this from various perspectives. That said, the last chapter of the book is entitled, “Strategies of Intervention and Prevention”. Three pages are devoted to “Warning signs”. None of these are necessary or sufficient conditions: they are merely a list of indicators. I summarize: [ul]
[li]A history of genocide or intercommunal conflict[/li]Perps are often repeat offenders.
[li]Severe economic crisis[/li][li]Mobilization along lines of communal cleavage[/li]Actually this isn’t a problem so long as the society also has cross-cutting forums, movements and institutions that foster a cosmopolitan outlook. Working and playing together helps. Inclusivenss is the key concept: evidence against it can include systematic exclusion from governmental programs, forced exile, denial of the right to vote and political parties that emphasize ethnic and language groups rather than policy differences.
[li]Hate propaganda [/li]Emphasis in original: “And if there is one message I would seek to impart above all others in the study and prevention of genocide it is: Let the perpetrators or would-be perpetrators tell you, by their words and deeds, who their targets are. Then confront them accordingly.”
[li]Unjust discriminatory legislation and related measures[/li][li]Severe and systematic state repression[/li]The usual human rights abuses practiced in authoritarian countries. Not that creeping tyranny in democracies isn’t a concern.
[/ul]
In case it isn’t clear, all that should be thought of as a first cut on the problem by a textbook writer (or rather a summary of that by myself). It isn’t exactly definitive.
The book also has a chapter on psychological perspectives and another with a sociological framework. I haven’t read either.