Alexanders tollerance of religions and races

[beausefaless]

Sounds like the US, except religious practitioners in conjunction with their establishments are exempt from taxes.

[nick]

Hi Smitty -Thanks for the nice words. I do know little or nothing about the 'tolerance' of the Argead house (I suppose Tre is the specialist here), but I do know the Persian Achaemenids actually encouraged the practice of different religions in the empire. (Cambyses' treatment of Egypt being the one notable exception, but even on Cambyses' 'misbehaviour' scholars differ in opinion.) I must add that the earlier comments about Alexander's mistreatment of the Magi and the Brahmins show that Alexander wasn't as liberal as the Persians might have been: my point was that he inherited an empire where "religious intolerance" had been out of the question for two centuries. (Though I must say that I agree with scholars like the Romanian Eliade, that the Persians probably never put their religion into scriptures until Late Antiquity or even after the coming of Islam - and thus that the alleged burning of the Avesta was a later invention.)On tolerance towards racial minorities: I have always been fascinated by Basil Davidson's statements that racism as we know it today was an European invention after 1500 AD when the economic system (slave trade) required an ideologic concept that made a distinction between 'proper' humans and humans 'in between man & beast', so that these slaves could in fact be treated as 'animals'. Davidson, one of the world's most respected scholars on African history, argues that before 1500 foreign races could be looked upon as weird or maybe even inferior in some aspects, but never to an extent that legitimated inhumane treatment. The Greeks might use the word 'barbarian' for foreign races, but never in the sense that we now associate with the atrocities of modern racism.Regards -Nick

[Kit]

Which makes you wonder if the 'religious practioners' are merely being pragmatic in avoiding taxes!?Kit.

[marcus]

Hi Nick,Yes, I remember reading a similar story on the evolution of 'racism'.I'm getting in a spin about this thread, because the original question was about religious tolerance, while it appears to have spiralled into questions of racial tolerance.So, the next question is - are the two separable? I think they are, and the original question would suggest so, too: "tolerance of religion and races".All the bestMarcus

[beausefaless]

Yes, I'm a little of base using the US as an example but the separation of church and state only exists in political speeches. Religion has a major influence on politics and all races or most, therefore religious representatives have the advantage. Also, religion plays a huge roll in helping the needy locally and though out the world. Sorry about the spelling of practitioner