This is kind of complicated and it might seem like a ridiculous fine-tuning of things... but Christians through the ages didn't perceive themselves as torturers. Yes they engaged in torture, but it was believed that such practices actualised the reality of God in the material realm. If we take this according to the self-understanding of Christians, Christians didn't engage in torture, God did (since God is the author of all things, and all suffering is justified according to the doctrine of sin, this follows consistently) [this is, perhaps, why modern Christians have an aversion to the history of religions... because it really makes 'faith' quite impossible]. Torture was legitimate in the eyes of God because it was an acceptable medium to punish sin, but the torturers did not perceive themselves to be torturing people (with, perhaps, the odd exception). This is not unlike Eichmann's defence or the responses collected by Stanley Milgram. Actual theologians argued against torture and indicate that no Christian should engage in it - an interesting side note to this: because it was deemed illegitimate for an order of the church to engage in torture many times a member of the clergy would hold up some sort of gruesome hook or something in the middle of a question period... although prevented from using it, this had a profound effect on the responses. Or, simply, a non-cleric would be asked to administer the sufferings. I would say that Christians did torture and kill people for wrong belief... but didn't perceive themselves as doing so... With that qualification I would say that torture (as measured pain) is a modern and secular practice. See Talal Asad, "Reflections on Cruelty and Torture" Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (2003).
To respond to the rest --> most other religious traditions inflict death on others. The only "tradition" that has, for the most part, never engaged in war or war-like activity is Jainism. Torture is a matter of degree. That the ancient Maoris would capture, enslave, and eventually eat enemies was no picnic for the person captured, although it was a picnic for the Maoris. The labour the captured person had to engage in was cooking: cleaning pots, preparing meals. Structurally the interpretive system of the ancient Maoris aligned men with the sacred (tabu) and women with the profane or polluting (noa). Cooking was seen as profane (noa) activity, in contrast to the tabu activity of hunting. A captured (male) enemy would be treated as profane, like a woman and have to engage in profane and polluting work. This would have been perceived of as a kind of psychological torture for the enslaved... this would be one example of a kind of torture followed by death...
ken
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-admin at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:21 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Godel's Proof of God
Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>
> DO have creeds... so what you believe is VERY important. We can't
> just brush off "belief" by focusing on "behaviour."
Have any religious traditions other than Christianity inflicted death by torture specifically for wrong belief (independent of practice)? If so, which ones and when?
Carrol