Kill the infidel, why not?

During the 3rd century of the Common Era, Rome found itself in a big crisis made up of smaller crises (barbarian invasions, rebellious provinces, tin-pot emperors, etc.) To many in the Empire it was clear the Romans, and their subjects in most cases, had lost the favor of the gods. One emperor in this period, Decius (sp?) intended to gain such favor back. One measure he undertook was an order to all Roman citizens to perform sacrifices at the temples, regardless of which religion they followed.

I assume Jews got away with it by making sacrifices to Jehovah in their temples in the name of one or more of the deified emperors, but I don't know this for sure. In any case it's known Jews sometimes worshipped or sacrificed to pagan deities now and then.

Anyway, Christians who did not perform such sacrifices faced grave retaliation. One common measure was torture and death. This gave rise, in part, to the Christian cult of Martyrs, btw.

Of course Decius was morally dead wrong in going about things this way. But I'm afraid Christian leaders were not any better. See, the requirement for sacrifices was not onerous. One sacrifice was enough to obtain a certificate which exempted one, and one's family, from persecution. There was no need for frequent offerings to the gods, additional sacrifices, or even renouncing other religions or creeds.

To me the sensible thing would have been to go along, kill a chicken for Jupiter and move on. At the same time they could also have made their case. After all, would the gods appreciate offerings forced out of otherwise loyal imperial subjects?

Some Christians did make the required sacrifice. This led to a split in the church (of course). Later on, Christians became as intolerant and as prone to force their beliefs on others. Proving that suffering persecution does not make anyone necessarily sympathetic to its victims.