Can a song be musical art and propaganda simultaneously? — ucarr

Is there an aesthetics of human manipulation of context? — ucarr

Yes and yes. — praxis

Do your answers establish a separation between art-in-itself and art-in-itself weaponized?

I've underlined the first sentence in your quote directly above. It's the gist of your argument for refuting my two quoted statements at the top. — ucarr

It is not an argument. Your phrase contradicts itself. I've had to say nothing at all. Simply quote you. It's getting really boring working through your misunderstandings.

As you can see, by my definition of Love and War, marriage, home, family and community are directly linked to Love and War. — ucarr

Bizarre mate. Not my circus.

making the same claim about each statement, namely that they are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences is not a contradiction because the two claims, in actuality, are about the same thing — ucarr

They are not. Are you even paying attention?

the attributes of two parts of one unit — ucarr

No, they are not. One is talking about hte 'unit' and one is talking about a discreet part of hte Unit. They are not analogous, and cannot be read-between. In some cases, the same will be able to be said about those disparate things, for other reasons. Something being 'robust' could be true of both options, for instance.

ere is a unit articulated into two parts — ucarr

And so they are contradictory. Two parts. Not one. Two. They cannot maintain the same role in your position. This is plain.

are not contradictory. — ucarr

They are, though and you did not show otherwise, in any way. Your specific use is what's making htem contradict one another. Not their inherent properties. As noted, its possible to refer to disparate, but related objects, with the same atrributes - but you cannot assign an attribute of totality, to a part of that which is 'total'. "Love and War" cannot be referred to in the same way as whatever parochial elements your shoehorning into that phrase. Attributes of the whole cannot also be assigned to their parts, because they are literally different things.

Its the combination of the two parts that refutes your ascription of contradiction because contradictions cannot combine. — ucarr

No, it supports it. Abysmal work.

By my definition, Love and War both include: marriage, home, family, community. If this is true, then they can't be contradictory when defined as I've defined them. — ucarr

That is contradictory, already. If both are defined in the same way, they are the same thing and cannot be spoken about as in contrast (which you are doing - this is why your use is what's causing the contradiction). I get the feeling you're trying to do this on the fly, rather than having fleshed anything out before having to meet these objections.

Can you show that, during WW2, it was not the case that there were married couples, homes, families and communities in both America and Germany? An example supporting your argument would have to show that in one country there were marriages, homes, families and communities whereas in the other country there were anti-marriages, anti-homes, anti-families and anti-communities. — ucarr

Sorry, but this is irrelevant and absolute nonsense. Nothing here has anything whatsosever to do with my objection. You seem to not be able to understand the really basic tenets being discussed. You refuse to define your terms, you refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of whatever it is you're trying to say, and you don't even have a clear, coherent point to make. Its really, really difficult to keep interacting with something tha tis just a mess.

Do your answers establish a separation between art-in-itself and art-in-itself weaponized? — ucarr

If you mean art-in-itself or 'art for art's sake' and art weaponized, yes I've made that separation.

I'd like to move on to the weaponization of religion. Can religion be meaningful and propaganda simultaneously?

I've asked Chatgpt to provide a few examples:

The Crusades (11th–13th Centuries)

• Context: The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated by the Latin Church in medieval Europe, primarily to reclaim the Holy Land from Muslim control.
• Weaponization of Religion: The Crusades were framed as holy wars, sanctioned by the Pope, with the promise of absolution of sins for those who participated. This religious justification masked political and territorial ambitions and helped unify various Christian nations against a common enemy.
• Impact: The Crusades led to significant bloodshed, with entire populations being massacred, including Jews and Muslims, and created centuries-long tensions between the Christian and Islamic worlds.

Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)

• Context: The Inquisition was a powerful tool used by the Catholic monarchy in Spain to maintain religious orthodoxy, particularly after the Reconquista (the Christian reconquest of Spain from Muslim rulers).
• Weaponization of Religion: The Inquisition was employed to suppress heresy, expel or forcibly convert Jews and Muslims, and root out any deviations from Catholic doctrine. Accusations of heresy were often used to eliminate political rivals, seize property, and suppress dissent.
• Impact: Thousands of people were tortured, executed, or forced into exile, contributing to the religious and cultural homogenization of Spain. The fear and repression instilled by the Inquisition also stifled intellectual and cultural progress for centuries.

Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)

• Context: The Thirty Years' War was one of the deadliest conflicts in European history, involving most of the major powers of Europe. Although it began as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states within the Holy Roman Empire, it evolved into a more general political struggle.
• Weaponization of Religion: Religion was used to rally support for various factions, with both Protestant and Catholic rulers using religious loyalty to justify war. This religious veneer often hid the deeper motivations of power, territory, and political dominance.
• Impact: The war devastated much of Central Europe, with millions of deaths from violence, famine, and disease. It also led to significant shifts in the balance of power in Europe and a rethinking of the relationship between church and state.

British Colonialism and the Spread of Christianity (17th–19th Centuries)

• Context: During the era of British imperialism, missionaries were often sent to colonized regions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas alongside military and administrative forces.
• Weaponization of Religion: Christianity was used to justify colonial expansion by portraying it as a "civilizing mission." The spread of Christian values was framed as a moral imperative, often dehumanizing indigenous cultures and providing a rationale for subjugation and exploitation.
• Impact: Indigenous cultures and religions were suppressed, and in some cases, nearly eradicated. Religious conversions were often coerced or incentivized, while colonizers seized land and resources, leading to deep social, cultural, and economic upheavals.

Partition of India (1947)

• Context: As British India gained independence, tensions between the Hindu and Muslim populations culminated in the partition of the country into predominantly Hindu India and Muslim-majority Pakistan.
• Weaponization of Religion: Religion was used to create divisions between communities that had previously coexisted for centuries. Politicians and leaders manipulated religious identities to fuel nationalist and sectarian movements. Religious differences were highlighted to legitimize the creation of two separate states.
• Impact: The partition led to one of the largest mass migrations in history, with over 10 million people displaced and an estimated 1–2 million deaths due to communal violence. The religious divide continues to shape relations between India and Pakistan.

Rwandan Genocide (1994)

• Context: The Rwandan Genocide was a mass slaughter of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 800,000 people in just 100 days.
• Weaponization of Religion: Religious rhetoric was used to incite violence, with some church leaders participating in the genocide or providing support to Hutu extremists. Religious institutions, particularly the Catholic Church, were accused of failing to intervene or actively contributing to the killings.
• Impact: The genocide left deep scars in Rwandan society, with the role of religious institutions during the violence being a subject of ongoing scrutiny and debate.

Islamic State (ISIS) and Jihadism (2010s)

• Context: The Islamic State (ISIS) emerged in the context of the Syrian civil war and the instability in Iraq, proclaiming a caliphate and using extreme violence to establish control over territories.
• Weaponization of Religion: ISIS and other jihadist groups used a distorted interpretation of Islam to justify acts of terror, violence, and the imposition of a brutal theocratic regime. Their rhetoric centered around a religious duty to fight against non-believers (kafirs) and apostates.
• Impact: The rise of ISIS led to widespread human suffering, mass displacement, and acts of terror around the world. The group's actions also fueled Islamophobia and created divisions within the global Muslim community.

Religious Nationalism in Myanmar (2010s–2020s)

• Context: In Myanmar, the Rohingya Muslim minority has faced severe persecution from the Buddhist majority, particularly during a military crackdown in 2017 that was described as ethnic cleansing.
• Weaponization of Religion: Ultra-nationalist Buddhist monks and leaders used religious rhetoric to dehumanize the Rohingya, framing them as a threat to the nation’s Buddhist identity. This was used to legitimize violence and mass displacement.
• Impact: Over 700,000 Rohingya were forced to flee to neighboring Bangladesh, with thousands killed. The religious and ethnic tensions exacerbated by this conflict have contributed to ongoing humanitarian crises in the region.

Salem Witch Trials (1692)

• Context: In colonial Massachusetts, a series of hearings and prosecutions took place against individuals accused of witchcraft.
• Weaponization of Religion: Puritan religious beliefs played a central role in the trials. The fear of witchcraft was rooted in religious doctrine, and accusations were often fueled by social and political tensions within the community. Religious leaders endorsed the trials as a necessary purging of evil.
• Impact: Nineteen people were executed, and many others were imprisoned. The trials reflected the dangers of religious fanaticism and mass hysteria, leading to deep trauma and mistrust in the local community.

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have. — ucarr

Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences. — ucarr

This is directly contradictory. If the former, not hte latter. If the latter, not hte former. — AmadeusD

In the above quote you make a claim about my [two-part] statement. Can you show that my statement is a contradiction? — ucarr

It is self evident. See:

I think love and war are two broad categories that encompass most of the important experiences humans have
— ucarr

Is in contradiction to the very next phrase:

Likewise, marriage, home, family and community are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences.
— ucarr

You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so). — AmadeusD

I've underlined the first sentence in your quote directly above. It's the gist of your argument for refuting my two quoted statements at the top. Your refutation is false because, apparently, you've forgotten something. What you seem to have forgotten is reposted directly below:

Art and morality within the context of this thread reduce to four elements:

Love | War

Love -- Marriage, home, family, community

War -- Power & Money in service to Partisan: Marriage, home, family, community
— ucarr

As you can see, by my definition of Love and War, marriage, home, family and community are directly linked to Love and War. Therefore, making the same claim about each statement, namely that they are broadly inclusive of the important human experiences is not a contradiction because the two claims, in actuality, are about the same thing, albeit, the thing in question here is a unit articulated into two parts: concentric circles. The outer circle houses the two big parts: Love | War; the inner circle houses the smaller parts that fill in the big parts with pertinent details: marriage, home, family, community.

If I say a Swiss watch runs like a precision mechanism, and likewise, its sweep second hand runs like a precision mechanism, there's no contradiction because the two statements are talking about the attributes of two parts of one unit. — ucarr

I'm asking you to take the words in my statement and arrange them into a configuration that shows it is a contradiction. This would be an argument supporting your claim.
— ucarr

You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role. They are contradictory (though, admittedly, indirectly so).
— AmadeusD

in your quote directly above, you make an approach to arranging my words into a configuration that shows it is a contradiction: "You cannot have both stand in the same symbolic role." But I counter-argue that statement by showing that two parts that combine to make a unified whole are not contradictory. Its the combination of the two parts that refutes your ascription of contradiction because contradictions cannot combine. — ucarr

What I've underlined immediately above is my defense of your attack:

Its the combination of the two parts that refutes your ascription of contradiction because contradictions cannot combine.[/quote]

Here's your latest reply:

It is not an argument. Your phrase contradicts itself. I've had to say nothing at all. Simply quote you. — AmadeusD

In your above quote I've underlined the gist of your latest attack; it's merely a repetition of your prior attack. Since your prior attack, I've defended my thesis. Now you have to attack my defense of my thesis. Merely repeating your attack gains you nothing.

Here's the gist of my defense of your attack based on contradiction:

Its the combination of the two parts that refutes your ascription of contradiction because contradictions cannot combine.[/quote]

In order to continue your attack, you have to attack my defense quoted above. You have to show why my thesis is still contradictory, even in light of my defense.

If you mean art-in-itself or 'art for art's sake' and art weaponized, yes I've made that separation. — praxis

I'll venture to surmise from your statement above we agree that art lies beyond morality, the central theme of this conversation.

I'd like to move on to the weaponization of religion. Can religion be meaningful and propaganda simultaneously? — praxis

I think the weaponization of religion, unlike the weaponization of art (as propaganda), lies outside of the scope of this conversation.

I have a notion that religion and politics are either nearly or even exactly the same thing. There's a Gordian knot linking religion, politics and morality.

The founding fathers of the United States did a profoundly good thing when they configured a system of government that separates church and state. However, maintaining this separation in the practice of government requires navigation of considerable complexity of statecraft with a nuanced understanding.

If any of what I'm saying here is right, then this topic needs to become its own independent conversation. Do you want to start it? If you do, I'll join with these thoughts in mind.

I have a notion that religion and politics are either nearly or even exactly the same thing. There's a Gordian knot linking religion, politics and morality. — ucarr

There is politics in the conservation/construction of any way of being, wherever there are priests and parishioners (politicians and the public) who are "relating to the citizens", promoting the rules and regulation of that way of being in dialectical good will. It's complicated for sure.

Socrates, the founding father of a type of novel dialectic, was condemned by the state.

I heard some notable Rabbi make the comment that Judaism is "portable civilization". You can carry the art of being Jewish from one place to another and endure or enjoy life through it. But one Rabbi might say you have to cut off the skin of your wiener to be a member of the tribe, while another might say that is unnecessary.

And don't forget about Jesus who broke the walls of Judaism wide open to invite the peoples of all nations... if that is what he did. He was the seed of the Christian tree, with all of its ever growing and flowering branches.

I'll venture to surmise from your statement above we agree that art lies beyond morality, the central theme of this conversation.
...
I think the weaponization of religion, unlike the weaponization of art (as propaganda), lies outside of the scope of this conversation. — ucarr

I can mentally separate art for art's sake and utilitarian-based art but to say that art lies beyond morality raises it to a Godly height. How is art lived beyond morality?

There is politics in the conservation/construction of any way of being, wherever there are priests and parishioners (politicians and the public) who are "relating to the citizens", promoting the rules and regulation of that way of being in dialectical good will. It's complicated for sure. — Nils Loc

:up:

I can mentally separate art for art's sake and utilitarian-based art but to say that art lies beyond morality raises it to a Godly height. How is art lived beyond morality? — praxis

Life is lived beyond morality in that it is more inclusive. I base this claim on the assumption that we as humans, existentially speaking, are more than what we know ourselves to be. For this reason, new experiences and their eventual comprehension keeps history going forward without it being a repetitious loop.

Following from this, art, being more directly linked to and concerned with what human is instead of what human should, follows human-is more closely and non-judgmentally that does establishmentarian morality (the church).

Can human be understood, as opposed to being non-judgmentally observed, outside the context of morality? Maybe not. If not, the question illuminates something important about understanding: it's dependent upon models, that is, paradigms. We say something is right or wrong based upon conformity to a model or standard.

In contrast to this, being and doing, the theater of action of humans, cannot be constrained by a suffocating adherence to an established model; adaptation to an ever-changing world authorizes this transgression. From this truth we know that each newborn child is unique and thus congenitally at odds with moral standards. The eventual social acceptance of the newborn child depends upon his success in conforming to normative standards.

If the strong individual survives moral condemnation for being and acting differently, the chance increases that the gravitational force of this singular person will bend the establishmentarian moral standards to some degree of warpage to his willful state of being.

It is by the continuum of rebellion become revolution that revolutionary social movements push history forward.

The history of world-religion founders is the history of broken moral precedents.

For these reasons, I say that life, and art, lie beyond morality.

n order to continue your attack, you have to attack my defense quoted above. You have to show why my thesis is still contradictory, even in light of my defense. — ucarr

I've already directly responded to it. Having shown, by pure juxtaposition, that your two claims are either empty, as they are the same claim, or literally contradict one another, I need do nothing else.

I’m not following at all. It seems to me that art beyond morality would be morally inert. It might happen to be completely inline with moral norms or be completely against them, or even more incomprehensible, be with and against simultaneously.

In order to continue your attack, you have to attack my defense quoted above. You have to show why my thesis is still contradictory, even in light of my defense. — ucarr

...your two claims are either empty, as they are the same claim... — AmadeusD

Even if they were the same, an identity is not empty, nor is it a contradiction. They are not the same claim; they are similar claims about two different parts of a unified whole.

...or literally contradict one another, I need do nothing else. — AmadeusD

Love and War are two sets, both of which contain marriage, home, family and community as members. The members are doubled by symmetry across two countries.

The two sets are not the same because one set partitions the symmetry and the other doesn't.

A set and its members is not an example of contradiction.

I’m not following at all. It seems to me that art beyond morality would be morally inert. It might happen to be completely inline with moral norms or be completely against them, or even more incomprehensible, be with and against simultaneously. — praxis

Your statement makes it clear you are following. If I stretch the meaning of "inert" a bit and construe "inactive" as being "neutral-adjacent," then life-and-art-beyond-morality are the sources and causes of morality. We can kind of imagine life and art without morality; can we imagine morality without life and art?

Now we're looking at the question: why does the world, capable of immense good, tolerate evil?

Art perceives the world in terms of human bias towards goals. If we can imagine existence outside of the bias of goal-oriented consciousness, then we can see that the non-living undergo all possibilities without bias. Through the lens of consciousness, many of these events are deemed evil because they are life-threatening.

The lack of restraint about events and outcomes in the non-living world becomes charged with emotional and, later, moral value when events and outcomes are perceived by sentients.

If I stretch the meaning of "inert" a bit and construe "inactive" as being "neutral-adjacent,"... — ucarr

Stretch it all you like. Though why not just be real. Art isn't beyond morality any more than baking or dropping a nuclear bomb. Even if you framed the latter as performance art it would still have purpose.

... then life-and-art-beyond-morality are the sources and causes of morality. — ucarr

Don't know how you got here from what preceeded it.

Even if they were the same, an identity is not empty, nor is it a contradiction. — ucarr

This shows me clearly you are not on the ball. THe are two separate objections, based on the two possible avenues you could claim to be running in. Neither actually works for you, and hte above once again, runs the two together which is exactly what I am pointing out causes a contradiction. So, you're doubling down on 1) denying the contradiction, and 2) adhering to the contradictory form. As before, bizarre.

two different parts of a unified whole — ucarr

No. As also already pointed out, point-blank, without wiggle room - one is the whole is one is a part of that whole. So, again(getting tired of this), you aren't understanding your own claims sufficiently to present them.

Love and War are two sets, both of which contain marriage, home, family and community as members. The members are doubled by symmetry across two countries. — ucarr

I can, somewhat, get on board with the initial conception here, but the underlined is a total non sequitur and doesn't do anything for us. Countries aren't 'real' in the sense needed to divide or inform an abstract 'set' as you want to be doing. That said, I reject the conception of those sets. Your formulations make no sense to me, provide no criteria and are just picking out random, badly-defined (and, in your world, completely stretched, unrecognizable) terms. So, even if you're going to invoke language-use to support some of these readings (acknowledging when you get to it, your argument might be interesting) no one but you, it would seem, could assent to what you're trying to say. This explains why It isn't making any sense, and is almost impossible to follow. The fact I still have this question:

What are you wanting to talk about here?

Tells me you're being insufficient in your attempt to present whatever it is. You're genuinely waffling through most of these replies and I hope there's a point inhere somewhere, as I've now spent much time trying to point out what appears to me intractable issues in what you're doing. Can you perhaps only try to answer that singular question above? It is still not in any way clear what you want to talk about. The closest I can get is statements like this:

The lack of restraint about events and outcomes in the non-living world becomes charged with emotional and, later, moral value when events and outcomes are perceived by sentients. — ucarr

But this is both counter to reality, presupposes several moral 'facts' which I would contend don't, and can't exist, and wants a transitive relation between moral agents and pre-existing states of affairs. This cannot be so. What moral agents do in light of states of affairs can. Those states, however, have no moral charge, worth or indication. They cannot. They are not moral.

Art isn't beyond morality any more than baking or dropping a nuclear bomb.
Even if you framed the latter as performance art it would still have purpose. — praxis

So, you think morals and purpose entwined. That positions us inside the frame of goals. Things in themselves as such have no goals. Once a sentient exists, he can pursue goals. The naked fact of existence cannot be inhabited through reasoning from the outside, as if non-existence can set the goal of becoming something.

Goals can't get started without the naked fact of existence. That makes existence prior to goals.

A cosmic sentient with unlimited powers may have created humans with their purpose in mind and therefore with human purpose built into their design. This leads to a human life with every action answerable to the innate design of human nature's moral imperatives.

The cosmic sentient may have assumed flesh and blood on earth. If this life was a perfectly moral journey, as needs be if sentient life is framed by innate purpose and morals, then the question of cognitive suffocation stands forward as a debatable mystery operating under the dome of freedom illuminated but not embraced, instead dancing out at the horizon, cavorting, as if ready to fall off the edge before capture.

Cognitive suffocation is blocked by disobedience to human nature's moral imperatives? Disobedience is necessary to human freedom? It is written that the cosmic sentient doesn't block human disobedience for love of human freedom. Is cosmic suffocation unreal, or is human freedom beyond purpose not written in the earthly covenant?

What are you wanting to talk about here? — AmadeusD

My title is my guide: Art Lies Beyond Morality. This is my premise, and I see now it is related to existentialism as I understand it: blooming creation leads to sensory overload for human unless he filters out, morally speaking, what's excess beyond what his brain can handle. The existentialist understands he's artificially simplifying reality, and he comes to terms with this lack of authenticity by making a pact with his conscience: I know my sampled reality is a sham replica standing in for the actual state of affairs of the world, but its the best that I can do in the way of acknowledgement, so I'll stay the course of my jury-rigged reality with as much integrity as I can muster. The foundation of my reality will be personal choices and my fidelity to them.

The above journey enfolds moral choices known to be ultimately artificial, with an overview of one's personal theater of action consequently seen as a rather sincere type of stage play. Objective moral truths, you say? Here on my little stage I want to be interested in what you have to say, and perhaps even more interested in what you do. If there's any measure of cosmic logic that connects my being good with getting what I want, then I'll try to injection mold myself into the various moral strait jackets we reach agreement upon.

Your formulations make no sense to me, provide no criteria and are just picking out random, badly-defined (and, in your world, completely stretched, unrecognizable) terms... So, even if you're going to invoke language-use to support some of these readings...no one but you, it would seem, could assent to what you're trying to say. — AmadeusD

AmadeusD, I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery than persuading you with anything I write. So now I thank you for your time and attention to what you feel compelled to dismiss after an extended period of time. Soldiering on through someone else's nonsense is commendable behavior on your part.

Because of your patience and endurance on my behalf, I got a mental workout that has aided me greatly in better understanding what I think and what I want to communicate to others in writing.

Probably it won't be long before I post another conversation, and considering your helpful participation in this one, I'll be looking forward to new posts from you.

A cosmic sentient with unlimited powers may have created humans with their purpose in mind and therefore with human purpose built into their design. — ucarr

May have or has?

Since I'm going along with the idea a God-bearing universe is more interesting and more fun than a Godless universe, I'm saying "has."

This is my premise — ucarr

It isn't a premise. Once again, you do not know the words you are using.

blooming creation leads to sensory overload for human unless he filters out, morally speaking, what's excess beyond what his brain can handle — ucarr

This is senseless. It literally does not mean anything of value to the conversation. It's a claim, across three non-related concepts ('creation', 'sensory overload' and 'morality'). You have not adequate made sense. I'm not sure what else to say - it's not that I disagree; it literally does not make sense and I'm find it really hard not to think you're simply ignoring this so as to not necessarily admit you're waffling (there is precisely nothing wrong with waffling, if you are clear that this is the intention - but even after asking you several times you cannot even distill a point in your claims).

I know my sampled reality is a sham replica standing in for the actual state of affairs of the world, but its the best that I can do in the way of acknowledgement, so I'll stay the course of my jury-rigged reality with as much integrity as I can muster. — ucarr

What are you talking about? You are just constantly saying wildly divergent things with no connection whatever to your substantial points, again, misusing words, violating categories and consistently refusing to be direct. What do you want to talk about????

cosmic logic — ucarr

Again what are you talking about? COSMIC logic? This is profoundly unphilosophical.

I very, very much appreciate your candor and respect through the exchange - I have tried my best to be (personally) gentle, if conceptually rough. So, I really appreciate that.

AmadeusD, I know I have a better chance of winning the lottery than persuading you with anything I write. — ucarr

My dear, dear uCarr, this is not in any way a problem from me. You are entirely failing to make any sense. There is a reason we're not following you well, and it is not our comprehension of stubbornness. I've now, over several days dedicated more than two hours of my time to respond to your posts. I am clearly looking for something substantial, and to suggest otherwise as you are here indicates some sort of dishonesty on your part. Perhaps trying to avoid the charge of making no sense?

IN any case, I also look forward to further! THank you :)

a God-bearing universe is more interesting and more fun — ucarr

The Crusades (11th–13th Centuries)

• Context: The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated by the Latin Church in medieval Europe, primarily to reclaim the Holy Land from Muslim control.
• Weaponization of Religion: The Crusades were framed as holy wars, sanctioned by the Pope, with the promise of absolution of sins for those who participated. This religious justification masked political and territorial ambitions and helped unify various Christian nations against a common enemy.
• Impact: The Crusades led to significant bloodshed, with entire populations being massacred, including Jews and Muslims, and created centuries-long tensions between the Christian and Islamic worlds.

Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)

• Context: The Inquisition was a powerful tool used by the Catholic monarchy in Spain to maintain religious orthodoxy, particularly after the Reconquista (the Christian reconquest of Spain from Muslim rulers).
• Weaponization of Religion: The Inquisition was employed to suppress heresy, expel or forcibly convert Jews and Muslims, and root out any deviations from Catholic doctrine. Accusations of heresy were often used to eliminate political rivals, seize property, and suppress dissent.
• Impact: Thousands of people were tortured, executed, or forced into exile, contributing to the religious and cultural homogenization of Spain. The fear and repression instilled by the Inquisition also stifled intellectual and cultural progress for centuries.

Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)

• Context: The Thirty Years' War was one of the deadliest conflicts in European history, involving most of the major powers of Europe. Although it began as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states within the Holy Roman Empire, it evolved into a more general political struggle.
• Weaponization of Religion: Religion was used to rally support for various factions, with both Protestant and Catholic rulers using religious loyalty to justify war. This religious veneer often hid the deeper motivations of power, territory, and political dominance.
• Impact: The war devastated much of Central Europe, with millions of deaths from violence, famine, and disease. It also led to significant shifts in the balance of power in Europe and a rethinking of the relationship between church and state.

British Colonialism and the Spread of Christianity (17th–19th Centuries)

• Context: During the era of British imperialism, missionaries were often sent to colonized regions in Africa, Asia, and the Americas alongside military and administrative forces.
• Weaponization of Religion: Christianity was used to justify colonial expansion by portraying it as a "civilizing mission." The spread of Christian values was framed as a moral imperative, often dehumanizing indigenous cultures and providing a rationale for subjugation and exploitation.
• Impact: Indigenous cultures and religions were suppressed, and in some cases, nearly eradicated. Religious conversions were often coerced or incentivized, while colonizers seized land and resources, leading to deep social, cultural, and economic upheavals.

Partition of India (1947)

• Context: As British India gained independence, tensions between the Hindu and Muslim populations culminated in the partition of the country into predominantly Hindu India and Muslim-majority Pakistan.
• Weaponization of Religion: Religion was used to create divisions between communities that had previously coexisted for centuries. Politicians and leaders manipulated religious identities to fuel nationalist and sectarian movements. Religious differences were highlighted to legitimize the creation of two separate states.
• Impact: The partition led to one of the largest mass migrations in history, with over 10 million people displaced and an estimated 1–2 million deaths due to communal violence. The religious divide continues to shape relations between India and Pakistan.

Rwandan Genocide (1994)

• Context: The Rwandan Genocide was a mass slaughter of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 800,000 people in just 100 days.
• Weaponization of Religion: Religious rhetoric was used to incite violence, with some church leaders participating in the genocide or providing support to Hutu extremists. Religious institutions, particularly the Catholic Church, were accused of failing to intervene or actively contributing to the killings.
• Impact: The genocide left deep scars in Rwandan society, with the role of religious institutions during the violence being a subject of ongoing scrutiny and debate.

Islamic State (ISIS) and Jihadism (2010s)

• Context: The Islamic State (ISIS) emerged in the context of the Syrian civil war and the instability in Iraq, proclaiming a caliphate and using extreme violence to establish control over territories.
• Weaponization of Religion: ISIS and other jihadist groups used a distorted interpretation of Islam to justify acts of terror, violence, and the imposition of a brutal theocratic regime. Their rhetoric centered around a religious duty to fight against non-believers (kafirs) and apostates.
• Impact: The rise of ISIS led to widespread human suffering, mass displacement, and acts of terror around the world. The group's actions also fueled Islamophobia and created divisions within the global Muslim community.

Religious Nationalism in Myanmar (2010s–2020s)

• Context: In Myanmar, the Rohingya Muslim minority has faced severe persecution from the Buddhist majority, particularly during a military crackdown in 2017 that was described as ethnic cleansing.
• Weaponization of Religion: Ultra-nationalist Buddhist monks and leaders used religious rhetoric to dehumanize the Rohingya, framing them as a threat to the nation’s Buddhist identity. This was used to legitimize violence and mass displacement.
• Impact: Over 700,000 Rohingya were forced to flee to neighboring Bangladesh, with thousands killed. The religious and ethnic tensions exacerbated by this conflict have contributed to ongoing humanitarian crises in the region.

Salem Witch Trials (1692)

• Context: In colonial Massachusetts, a series of hearings and prosecutions took place against individuals accused of witchcraft.
• Weaponization of Religion: Puritan religious beliefs played a central role in the trials. The fear of witchcraft was rooted in religious doctrine, and accusations were often fueled by social and political tensions within the community. Religious leaders endorsed the trials as a necessary purging of evil.
• Impact: Nineteen people were executed, and many others were imprisoned. The trials reflected the dangers of religious fanaticism and mass hysteria, leading to deep trauma and mistrust in the local community.

In fairness, 'interesting' has no moral valence. It is interesting, historically speaking. But this is a digression. I would just have made this point to uCarr to make it clear he is using terms in a way no one else would in these contexts.

Rooting out the God-bearer was interesting.

What are you wanting to talk about here? — AmadeusD

My title is my guide: Art Lies Beyond Morality. This is my premise, and I see now it is related to existentialism as I understand it... — ucarr

It isn't a premise. Once again, you do not know the words you are using. — AmadeusD

premise | ˈpreməs |
noun
•an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory: the fundamental premise of the report.

verb [with object] (premise something on/upon)
•base an argument, theory, or undertaking on: the reforms were premised on our findings.
--The Apple Dictionary

a God-bearing universe is more interesting and more fun — ucarr

• The Crusades (11th–13th Centuries)

• Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)

• Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)

• British Colonialism and the Spread of Christianity (17th–19th Centuries)

• Partition of India (1947)

• Rwandan Genocide (1994)

• Islamic State (ISIS) and Jihadism (2010s)

• Religious Nationalism in Myanmar (2010s–2020s)

• Salem Witch Trials (1692)

What is interesting? Consider the newspaper publishers' credo: "If it bleeds it leads."

existentialism | ˌeɡzəˈsten(t)SHəˌliz(ə)m, ˌeksəˈsten(t)SHəˌliz(ə)m |
noun
•a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free
and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

In fairness, 'interesting' has no moral valence. — AmadeusD

Although I believe the opposite of the above quote: interest is the fortress of moral valence, let me nonetheless dive deeply into the modulation populating the gravity well of human experience as it specifically relates to: The Long History of Violence in the Name of Religion.

From the bullet list above, we see that () for the individual immersed within the maelstrom of this history, there looms the threat of existential overload thrice: culturally, morally and physically.

Making peace within a God-fearing culture by paying lip service to it is an example of sampling the long history of life-threatening violence in the name of adaptation for the sake of survival. Keeping faithful to this adaptation is the practice of existentialism.

The dumb show of existential compliance is mainly what religion-manipulating dictators want from their subjects. The real story is more complicated, and the existentialist concedes that.

If we position this world of roiling upheaval beside the non-events belaboring the perfections of daily life within Eden pre-fall-from-grace, then I think a case for the superior interest of the history of violence in the name of religion can be made.

So, in the case of the long history of violence in the name of religion, we have dueling narratives: there's the real situation no one understands fully because it's too much for the wee small human brain to understand beyond sampling, and there's the fiction-with-integrity of the existentialist.

Here's the fun part: the existentialist learns to play the game of "compliance" instead of practicing real compliance.

Existentialist role playing opens up a personal freedom space that forestalls the toxic boredom and shame of subjugation

If it bleeds it leads. — ucarr

I asked Chatgpt for another list of fun and interesting historical events:

Preservation of Knowledge by Monastic Orders (Medieval Europe)

• Time Period: 6th–13th centuries
• Religion: Christianity
• Benefit: During the Dark Ages, Christian monasteries in Europe played a crucial role in preserving knowledge. Monks copied and safeguarded classical texts, including works of philosophy, literature, and science, ensuring their survival through the collapse of the Roman Empire and into the Renaissance.

Islamic Golden Age (8th–14th centuries)

• Time Period: 8th–14th centuries
• Religion: Islam
• Benefit: The Islamic Golden Age was a period of flourishing arts, science, medicine, and philosophy. Scholars like Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd) made groundbreaking contributions to medicine, mathematics, and philosophy, preserving and expanding upon ancient Greek and Roman knowledge.

The Abolition of Slavery in the British Empire (1833)

• Time Period: 19th century
• Religion: Christianity (Evangelicalism)
• Benefit: Christian abolitionists, including figures like William Wilberforce, were instrumental in the campaign to abolish slavery. Their efforts culminated in the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, driven by moral convictions grounded in religious beliefs about human dignity and equality.

The Role of Buddhism in the Spread of Non-Violence (3rd century BCE onward)

• Time Period: 3rd century BCE onward
• Religion: Buddhism
• Benefit: Emperor Ashoka of India converted to Buddhism after witnessing the horrors of war, leading him to adopt non-violence (ahimsa) and promote tolerance, peace, and respect for all life. His reign was marked by ethical governance and the spread of compassionate values across Asia.

Quakers' Contribution to Social Reforms (17th–19th centuries)

• Time Period: 17th–19th centuries
• Religion: Christianity (Quakerism)
• Benefit: Quakers, or the Religious Society of Friends, were instrumental in many social reform movements. They advocated for prison reform, the abolition of slavery, and women's rights, motivated by their belief in equality and peace.

Gandhi’s Use of Religion in India’s Independence Movement (20th century)

• Time Period: Early 20th century
• Religion: Hinduism (with influences from Christianity and Jainism)
• Benefit: Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance (Satyagraha) was deeply rooted in Hindu, Christian, and Jain principles of non-violence. His leadership played a key role in mobilizing millions for India's peaceful struggle for independence from British rule.

The Civil Rights Movement in the United States (1950s–1960s)

• Time Period: 1950s–1960s
• Religion: Christianity
• Benefit: Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. drew heavily from Christian teachings of justice, equality, and love for one’s neighbor. King’s non-violent approach to combating racial segregation and inequality was inspired by his Christian beliefs, helping to galvanize the movement and pass civil rights legislation.

The Role of the Catholic Church in Mediating Conflicts (Late 20th century)

• Time Period: 20th century
• Religion: Catholicism
• Benefit: The Catholic Church, particularly through Pope John Paul II, played a key role in mediating peaceful transitions, such as in the Cold War era. The Church’s involvement in Poland’s Solidarity movement helped inspire non-violent resistance, contributing to the eventual fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

Buddhist Compassion and Healthcare in Asia (Traditional and Modern Times)

• Time Period: Ongoing
• Religion: Buddhism
• Benefit: Buddhist principles of compassion have fostered healthcare systems across Asia. Institutions like Tibetan Buddhist monasteries have historically provided medical care to the needy, blending spiritual healing with practical medicine. This tradition continues in modern times with Buddhist-inspired hospitals and humanitarian work.

Peacebuilding Efforts by Religious Leaders in Modern Conflicts (21st century)

• Time Period: 21st century
• Religion: Various (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.)
• Benefit: In places like Northern Ireland, South Africa, and the Middle East, religious leaders and interfaith groups have been instrumental in promoting dialogue, reconciliation, and peacebuilding. The role of these leaders has often been pivotal in mitigating conflict and fostering coexistence.

What I've learned from this conversation:

Summation

The existence of a material thing, when viewed outside the constraining scope of strategic incompletion, stands wrapped within a shroud of mystery at both ends of a continuum: neither the beginning nor the conclusion of material existence can be explained rationally because the practice of reason assumes the existence of material things as its necessary prerequisite.

Rationality and its language of logic therefore are contained within the continuity_continuum of existence. The continuity_continuum of existence being the sine qua non prerequisite for reason, it can make no start outside the material theater of action. Given this fact, there can be no rational explanation for existence-itself-in-general.

Naturalists take recourse to Deism, a doctrine that posits a cosmic creator who only actualizes material reality. In the wake of this rationally unexplainable act of creation, sentients are free to reason forward through material existence toward evolving phases of understanding and control of aspects of the material existence.

More specifically, through the powers of the arts and sciences, sentients are able to reason towards a concept of freedom post material creation. An operational presupposition claims humanity (so far as what is currently known) holds the highest position of freedom as material individuals who know both themselves and their environment.

According to this continuity, existence precedes essence. Per Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Sartre, human, through personally designed action, creates its essence, and thus is responsible for it.

This continuity, then, posits mysterious existence prior to morality and its sets and their degrees of inclusion, both of which are chosen by the individual.

The ancient scribes, who wrote the grammar of morals for the eastern and western hemispheres, by claiming inspiration from an eternal cosmic sentience, clearly worked in terms of existence precedes essence.*

*If the Deist creator is eternal, then existence is eternal. Since more than one cosmic creator is co-eternal with a material manifestation thereof, the question of priority vís-a-vís existence/essence must be examined through the lens of another question: Does any type of existence assume a material component?

If so, then within the mysterious state of being of the Deist creator, existence/essence co-exist with existence holding the overarching position of priority.

Evidence supporting this consists in the mind being grounded in the brain, and therefore the mind/brain interface dwells within the scope of the material.

As the sentient individual evolves, the complexity and absential materiality of personally designed morals will continue to approximate, at the level of the material individual, the grammar of morals assigned by the ancient scribes to the cosmic creator.

Rationality and its language of logic therefore are contained within the continuity_continuum of existence. The continuity_continuum of existence being the sine qua non prerequisite for reason, it can make no start outside the material theater of action. Given this fact, there can be no rational explanation for existence-itself-in-general. — ucarr

I.e. existence (reality) is the all-encompassing – eternal, unbounded – brute fact. As a pandeist, I concur :100: :up:

Neither of these apply to your title. You're welcome.

hat I've learned from this conversation: — ucarr

Is, unfortunately, that flowery language intended to refer to proper concepts and ideas, lacking wholly in substance, will be argued for ad infinitum in the face of clear evidence of hte above. Politeness apparently does not help in this endeavour, nor does direct application of rationality and reason. Trying to figure out someone's ideas when their language is purposefully ambiguous, contradictory and deceptive is probably a waste of time.