Separation of Science and State

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course historically this arose for very different reasons: religion has a tendency to have its followers brutally slaughter those who do not follow it and generally interfering with the personal freedom of non-believers. There's as much empirical evidence to suggest God exists as there is to suggest that all religions are inherently violent. But both are a leap of faith and a jump to conclusions based on other theories, for there is plenty of countering evidence which directly contradicts the theories on which these statements are founded.

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.

The exception is during times of war, but one only has to look at conflicts of the 20th and 21st Centuries to see that is not a facet of religion, but of human nature.

Rhy's point, I believe, is that 300 years ago Science would have been castigated and restricted for dissagreeing with "obvious" religious truths, while today the opposite is happening.

[Tellos Athenaios]

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.

Coincidentally, explicit freedom of religion provisions didn't emerge until that started happening, either. You got a lot of misery for having the pope interfere with appointing bishops in Germany, you got really rather gruesome wars for having the popes play out France and Spain against each other in Northern Italy; but you got Freedom of religion and Separation of Church and State when the USA was founded. And the secularism is simply borne out of the recognition that where religion is allowed to dictate state policy or where a state is allowed to dictate religious convictions you get a Civil War.

[Meneldil]

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.

Well, let me quote yourself here: "this is not an accurate statement"

Religious persecutions didn't wait for the cathars or for the crusades. Religious turnmoil and pogroms (either against jews or against christian sects) were defining features of the late roman empire. Jews have been disregarded and ostracized since christianism became a big deal, no matter where and when.
Charlemagne slaughtered pagans, just like Muhammad 150 years earlier. And by the end of the 10th century, the catholic church was already trying to enforce its dogma and to supress remnants from the pagan era.
As for wars, if it is caused by religious differences, then you can hardly rule out that religions promoted violence and intolerance.

The only reason why things got quieter for a while was that jews ceased to be a threat to the church, who ruled unrivaled over most of the western world but had neither the means nor the while to enforce an unified dogma. As soon as a rival (Islam) showed its ugly face, things went down the hill again.

As soon as religions became monotheistic - and thus claimed that someone had to be either "with us or against us" - only trouble could arise.

[The Stranger]

nothing you say is in conflict with what he has said. the last thing you say though has a point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Meneldil;2053265869]Well, let me quote yourself here: "this is not an accurate statement"

Religious persecutions didn't wait for the cathars or for the crusades. Religious turnmoil and pogroms (either against jews or against christian sects) were defining features of the late roman empire. Jews have been disregarded and ostracized since christianism became a big deal, no matter where and when.

Well, for starters, Jews were ostracised throughout the Imperial period for being "atheists" as were Christians. You are correct that there was inter-religious violence in the Late-Empire, but the period was generally violent and suffering from breakdown of infastructure, religion may have been the lighting spark for some violent episodes but it was not the fuel.

Charlemagne slaughtered pagans, just like Muhammad 150 years earlier.

Would you like me to cover some of the things those Pagans were doing to Christian missionaries at the time. Did you know that the boast of the English in the Medieval period was that they were the only people who hadn't killed the monks sent to convert them.

And by the end of the 10th century, the catholic church was already trying to enforce its dogma and to supress remnants from the pagan era.
As for wars, if it is caused by religious differences, then you can hardly rule out that religions promoted violence and intolerance.

I've read some of the transcripts of trial from the period, and they generally consisted of the Bishop saying, "well look, really..." and then giving a sermon to the heretics. Not a set of thumb screws or a red-hot poker in sight.

Religions "promote" violence? No. Religious people can sometimes be intollerant and resort to violence? Yes

Your anti-religious revolution was far more bloody than our religiously motivated one, as evidenced by the fact that our society was recovered within a generation.

The only reason why things got quieter for a while was that jews ceased to be a threat to the church, who ruled unrivaled over most of the western world but had neither the means nor the while to enforce an unified dogma. As soon as a rival (Islam) showed its ugly face, things went down the hill again.

Oh rubbish. The whole "Christianity and Islam locked in a brutal struggle" is a myth perpetrated by historians from the Renaissance onwards, Edward Gibbon probably deserves a fair share of the blame, but not him alone. Try reading some of the contemporary opinions of Saladin.

Wiki is a good start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

As soon as religions became monotheistic - and thus claimed that someone had to be either "with us or against us" - only trouble could arise.

This is a fair point, but the criticism extends to atheism, as is seen in the "New Atheists" today, some of whom are less palitable than the Cathars.