Is the West in decline?

[chequita guevara]

The West, no. The U.S., yes. We're retreating into ignorance and spending like there's no tomorrow.

[Whaleboy]

Also, who made that history but Christians?

The victors over the Church in these cases were those who sought their liberty or fair treatment, as such we today, including most in the Church, regard slavery, the Inquisition, and the like witha measure of sorrow and embarrassment, as well as hostility toward the Church at the time. Undoubtably, in 200 years the same situation will arise with the Church's treatment of homosexuals today.

often weren't done without a reason.

There's a reason for everything, in human terms there is no consequence without a cause. It is a completely different thing to confuse an explanation with an excuse. The crimes of the Church are, in my opinion inexcuseable, but not inexplicable. Nor do I deny that all churches have had their share of crimes, indeed wherever you find organised religion you find oppression, intolerance and the retardation of progress. However, since the Church is undoubtably the largest such organisation, it consequently has the lions share of the blood on its hands.

Nah, it wasn't a steady and one-way process.

No-one suggested it was... the Church has sometimes been successful in retarding progress, and it seems that for each century there is an issue.. it is indeed not a smooth transition, but the general trend is for the Church's influence to decrease with the rise in education and free thought.

the rise of protestantism brought bloody wars, persecutions on both sides, conquiscates of rightful church poverty, destruction of innumerable objects of art.

The protestants didn't want to hurt anyone, the instigator of the violence was the Inquisition.

Did church establish the supressed status of women? Did anyone want to change it back then, anyway?

A red herring. The suppression of women predated the Church by millenia, but the Church and it's contemporary religions seemed to take it to heart, what with the concept of original sin. They inherited anti-woman attitudes, and they magnified it against any common-sense interpretation of the literature on which the Church was based!

Well, if You claim Christianity is the cause of all the evil and in general is enemy of progress...

I claim that Christianity is, for various given reasons, the enemy of moral progress in the past and today. I have never claimed that it is the cause of all evil, you should know me better than that instead of using pathetic strawmen. That strawman is the only way to make your original counter stand up, and yet that whole logical sequence addressed a point alien to the point I made!

Were thinkers always burned - how come they could live and spread their thoughts, then?

You really should read that over and think about it for a second.

Midwife: "I'm afraid we believe your thirty-second year old son to be a free thinker and potential atheist"

Mother: "Oh dear. Chuck him on the fire then"

Midwife: "Better luck next time"

And who built the seems of their wisdom but the church?

I would hardly describe the 15th/16th century theological establishment as an abode of free-thought!

If there's a heresy that attacks and destroys churches, kills the priests and allies with enemies of the state to destroy it, a crusade against it can't be regarded as something outrageous.

You are aware of the inquisition are you not?

It's funny then, that the Christian (and/or ex-Christian) states are the most liberal today and the most developed.

Read: Secular. Actually I don't find it particularly surprising that secular states are the most liberal.

Or blaming Christ and Christianity for the crusades, which is exactly what You're doing

Christ is someone with whom I have no argument. His followers on the other hand should probably have been impaled on something large and rusty.

You probably mean that the church is one organisation,

Not at all. My argument is not merely with Christianity but with all organised religions, it is simply that Christianity is both the epitome and the most terrifying example of what is wrong with organised religion. Admittedly, Islam in modern times is in second place but they have several centuries of brutality to catch up on.

Voltaire himself was a man that deserves disdain

Plato, on the other hand, in his imagination created a state in comparison to which (not counting dealing with other nations) III Reich can be regarded as asylum of freedom and humanitarism.

It took me a while to understand what you were trying to say there but you're not a native English speaker, and your English is better than my Polish so I'll let you off .

Plato was writing nearly 400 years before christ, 2300 years before the Nazi's and 1900 years before the inquisition. His view is innocent of the blood those who interpreted it (and thus created their own view) spilled. A common-sense interpretation would see it as a healthy critique of Athenian democracy and a curious and interesting model; not something that is ready to impliment but something to inspire debate.

I would, nevertheless, much prefer to live in Plato's utopia than Hitler's Reich. Not simply because I'm Jewish either .

I see a capacity for abstract thought, creative intelligence, and a deep and productive curiosity about our place in the universe- key factors of what makes us human.

So, reactionaries can not use force to defend their beliefs, but revolutionaries can? Why? Who gives them that right?

No-one has more right to violence than any other, but that was not being espoused. A peaceful movement that seeks to break away from the establishment has no inherent violence, until the establishment without provocation regards these people as heretics and burns them. The cycle of violence was initiated by the inquisition and thus responsibility can be laid squarely at the feet of the Church.

Herreson conveniently forgets that the Catholic Church had been trying to SUPRESS the scientific revolution. *cough* Galileo *cough* If I remeber right, the material written by his fellow Pole, Copernicus, was put on the Church's list of forbidden books

They're still having trouble with the idea that the universe doesn't revolve around them

[Odin]

the rise of protestantism brought bloody wars, persecutions on both sides, conquiscates of rightful church poverty, destruction of innumerable objects of art.

Herreson's European History grade: F


Protestant theology was the culmination of phiosophers like Ockham and Bacon who severed Aquinas's conection between Faith and Reason, allowing for the rise of modern science.

[Saras]

It's Occam.

[Sava]

Odin spelling grade: F

[Odin]

Originally posted by Saras
It's Occam.

I've seen it spelled both ways.

[Saras]

Most likely on Poly

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
The victors over the Church in these cases were those who sought their liberty or fair treatment, as such we today, including most in the Church, regard slavery, the Inquisition, and the like witha measure of sorrow and embarrassment, as well as hostility toward the Church at the time. Undoubtably, in 200 years the same situation will arise with the Church's treatment of homosexuals today.

Luther and other heresies did not seek liberty. They seeked their own rule and establishment of their own rules. They searched for freedom of taking the wealth of the church, the freedom of burning on a stake, the freedom to ban catholics out of their countries.
The church's regards towards slavery was negative. You can not blame the church for it.

The crimes of the Church are, in my opinion inexcuseable,

Just like any other crimes, or not?

indeed wherever you find organised religion you find oppression, intolerance and the retardation of progress.

You can find oppression, intolerance and the retardation of (so-called) progress wherever and whenever You look.
Wherever You see an organised society (state, that is), there's intolerance and oppression. Lets destroy state, lets destroy the world...

However, since the Church is undoubtably the largest such organisation, it consequently has the lions share of the blood on its hands.

The church commited lots of mistakes, of which many were not avoidable. But it's done a lot good as well. Among catholics, it promoted peace, which (treuga dei and stuff) let Europe grow and get its identiry. It's organised hospitals. It has, on its own, promoted culture in western Europe in the dark ages, it's built seems for Europe's advancement up till today. It's brought us incredible art. It's shaped thousands of great personalities.

No-one suggested it was... the Church has sometimes been successful in retarding progress, and it seems that for each century there is an issue.. it is indeed not a smooth transition, but the general trend is for the Church's influence to decrease with the rise in education and free thought.

Nah. The rise of education under the jesuits helped the church, f.e. The "grip" of the church got loosened at the end of XVIII century, but only the last 40 years brought - in several countries only - real weakening of its influence.

The protestants didn't want to hurt anyone, the instigator of the violence was the Inquisition.

You can say that catholics "started" the violence, because they were at the power and defending the status quo.
However, the same means that the protestants started the fight, because they were attacking the status quo.
They couldn't use violence simple because they had no means. When they did, they used them.
Lets compare the church to a state: a state has the right to defend itself, also by violent means, from any revolts: why can't any other organisation fo the same? Also, lets take the case of Martin Luther. He was a catholic monk and, as such, agreed to obey some rules under the threats sanctioned by canonic law. He was rightly judged heretic.
It was him who disturbed the peace and brought death and tears to Europe.

I claim that Christianity is, for various given reasons, the enemy of moral progress in the past and today.

So, demanding to love your enemies, forgive everything everyone, the notion that people are equal etc are backward? The church often stood against progress (if such thing exists), because it was tied - not due to its own will! with the states and societies of the times it has lived within. You can not blame (only) church for that, and, even more, You can not blame Christianity for that.

You really should read that over and think about it for a second.
Midwife: "I'm afraid we believe your thirty-second year old son to be a free thinker and potential atheist"
Mother: "Oh dear. Chuck him on the fire then"
Midwife: "Better luck next time"

These free-thinkers were educated in parochial schools, and later at universities established by the church...
And if a church wanted to burn someone, be sure that it could.

You are aware of the inquisition are you not?

You are aware when it was founded and if You really can blaim the persecution of heretics in Byzantium on it, aren't You?

Read: Secular. Actually I don't find it particularly surprising that secular states are the most liberal.

Aren't You suprised that most of these states are Christian or ex-Christian? Don't You see that it was in Christian civilisation that a birth of secular and "progressive" state happened?

it is simply that Christianity is both the epitome and the most terrifying example of what is wrong with organised religion. Admittedly, Islam in modern times is in second place but they have several centuries of brutality to catch up on.

I think it's because we live in Christian world that we see its mistakes clearly, and not the ones of other civs.

Christ is someone with whom I have no argument. His followers on the other hand should probably have been impaled on something large and rusty.

Not biased, not intolerant, not backward at all...

He may be an interesting person, but a person without morality. Aked why he praises ruthless Katherine II, he replied that she's sent lots of fur coats to him, and he doesn't like cold.

Plato was writing nearly 400 years before christ, 2300 years before the Nazi's and 1900 years before the inquisition.

So You do not know when inquisition was founded, what a suprise.

His view is innocent of the blood those who interpreted it (and thus created their own view) spilled. A common-sense interpretation would see it as a healthy critique of Athenian democracy and a curious and interesting model; not something that is ready to impliment but something to inspire debate.

I guess Plato's state was his "idea" of a state, an ideal model. But he did try to convince rulers to impliment his ideas, and if he could shape a state, he would.

A peaceful movement that seeks to break away from the establishment has no inherent violence, until the establishment without provocation regards these people as heretics and burns them. The cycle of violence was initiated by the inquisition and thus responsibility can be laid squarely at the feet of the Church.

I disagree. The heretics knew what they were doing. They lived in a clearly defined world They knew that by they heresy, they are supposed to be burned.
This is not the case of all heresies, though.
Also, many heresies were also social movements, including some being, uhm, violent social movements.
Again, I'll compare the church to the state: if a citizen of a state denies paying taxes, breaks the laws and/or wishes to establish a new state or join another one,

They're still having trouble with the idea that the universe doesn't revolve around them

huh?

Herreson's European History grade: F
Protestant theology was the culmination of phiosophers like Ockham and Bacon who severed Aquinas's conection between Faith and Reason, allowing for the rise of modern science.

Dumb theory (and only theory, not a fact, don't mix those).

Originally posted by Odin
Herreson conveniently forgets that the Catholic Church had been trying to SUPRESS the scientific revolution. *cough* Galileo *cough* If I remeber right, the material written by his fellow Pole, Copernicus, was put on the Church's list of forbidden books

Copernicus was probably a priest, for sure he was a canon (which is an important church office). His uncle and patron, whose help allowed him his work, was a bishop. Galileo had lots of friends and patrons among the clergy, of which some defended him during the accusations he faced. He was even praised by a pope earlier.
The problem is that he had an idea that his discoveries are in disarcondance with certain parts of the Bible and that they should be corrected. If he hadn't brought that thing up, nothing would have happened probably.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Heresson




I disagree. The heretics knew what they were doing. They lived in a clearly defined world They knew that by they heresy, they are supposed to be burned.
This is not the case of all heresies, though.
Also, many heresies were also social movements, including some being, uhm, violent social movements.
Again, I'll compare the church to the state: if a citizen of a state denies paying taxes, breaks the laws and/or wishes to establish a new state or join another one,

Wow! There is quite a lot that you've posted that I take serious exception to in this thread (although Poland being a comparitively non inquisitorial country at the time of the reformation wouldn't be one of them) but this portion of this post has to be addressed before there is any hope of seeing eye to eye on the other issues.

Please clarify your stance by addressing the following hypothetical situation: Some people who were born in saudi arabia to muslim families convert to roman catholicism. They live in a clearly defined world where they are 'supposed to be' executed. Are you saying that if they resist execution (peacefully at first) and it snowballs into civil war that the civil war is entirely the fault of the Roman catholics? You are on the record as opposing the abandonment of Islam by any muslim in Saudi Arabia simply because forced islam is "a clearly defined world" there and what's more they deserve any punishment the muslim fundies in power visit on them?

If so...damn! I guess the west isn't only in decline but it seems some parts of it never really progressed in the first place.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Is the West in decline?

The West doesn't exist[/paiktis]

[Sava]

Re: Re: Is the West in decline?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The West doesn't exist[/paiktis]

[Geronimo]

We shouldn't so quickly dismiss Pattycakes old "there is no Western civilization" claim. IIRC nobody was able to actually define "Western Civilization" in a way that would allow for a recognizable single civilization for more than a couple centuries. No other civilization is so hard to define as "the West".

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Wow! There is quite a lot that you've posted that I take serious exception to in this thread (although Poland being a comparitively non inquisitorial country at the time of the reformation wouldn't be one of them) but this portion of this post has to be addressed before there is any hope of seeing eye to eye on the other issues.

Please clarify your stance by addressing the following hypothetical situation: Some people who were born in saudi arabia to muslim families convert to roman catholicism. They live in a clearly defined world where they are 'supposed to be' executed. Are you saying that if they resist execution (peacefully at first) and it snowballs into civil war that the civil war is entirely the fault of the Roman catholics? You are on the record as opposing the abandonment of Islam by any muslim in Saudi Arabia simply because forced islam is "a clearly defined world" there and what's more they deserve any punishment the muslim fundies in power visit on them?

If so...damn! I guess the west isn't only in decline but it seems some parts of it never really progressed in the first place.

Dear Geronimo.
My discussions here are hypothethical. That I defend something done hundreds years ago doesn't mean I want to see it going on today. I do not want inquisition today. If someone wants to leave the church, its up to his will, though I'm sad that most are doing it because of the unfair bashing Christianity, and especially RCC, gets.
I admit I'm under impression of civilisations in which religion and state are one - what Byzantines and Franks wanted to be, and what Muslims almost were. That's why I compare religion to a state: why do we think it's right to defend our state and opress our fellowmen who fight against it, but think that in the case of religion, similar behaviour is wrong? It's a question I've stated here many times, but got no reply yet.
That's why Saudi Arabia, in its cathegories, is right. We have different cathegories, but they can be wrong as well.
I believe they are (mostly) right. And I can't stand that instead of defending them, people like Whaleboy just start their senseless atheistic crusades ahainst Christians who, today, may only help them. Why do we hear here more complaints about medieval Europe than about Saudi Arabia? Why a question if USA is any different than Saudi Arabia is treated as a serious one?
I'm amazed by the scale of hatred towards "organised religion (= Christianity, because attacking others is not PC), denying their achievements and magnifying their mistakes.
That's why I'm going to the other extreme deliberatelly, to show someone You can have another opinion in matters that became western liberal/atheist/apolyton/whatever dogmas.

Oh, and Saudi Arabia is an exception today. Things were different back then.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Heresson


Dear Geronimo.
My discussions here are hypothethical. That I defend something done hundreds years ago doesn't mean I want to see it going on today. I do not want inquisition today. If someone wants to leave the church, its up to his will, though I'm sad that most are doing it because of the unfair bashing Christianity, and especially RCC, gets.
I admit I'm under impression of civilisations in which religion and state are one - what Byzantines and Franks wanted to be, and what Muslims almost were. That's why I compare religion to a state: why do we think it's right to defend our state and opress our fellowmen who fight against it, but think that in the case of religion, similar behaviour is wrong? It's a question I've stated here many times, but got no reply yet.
That's why Saudi Arabia, in its cathegories, is right. We have different cathegories, but they can be wrong as well.
I believe they are (mostly) right. And I can't stand that instead of defending them, people like Whaleboy just start their senseless atheistic crusades ahainst Christians who, today, may only help them. Why do we hear here more complaints about medieval Europe than about Saudi Arabia? Why a question if USA is any different than Saudi Arabia is treated as a serious one?
I'm amazed by the scale of hatred towards "organised religion (= Christianity, because attacking others is not PC), denying their achievements and magnifying their mistakes.
That's why I'm going to the other extreme deliberatelly, to show someone You can have another opinion in matters that became western liberal/atheist/apolyton/whatever dogmas.

Oh, and Saudi Arabia is an exception today. Things were different back then.

Except for the anarchists among us, we generally judge insurrection against a state not with blanket endorsement but rather by case by case examination of the causes of the insurrection. For example I don't see the US civil wars secession from the US and attempt to form a confederacy as having any worthy motivation at all, and I even have some ambivialence about the US secession from the British empire. I will only support insurrection against a violently oppressive government. That could include cases of governments that only turned violently oppressive in the face of civil disobedience or other peaceful protest.

If you want to say that reforming a religion is tantamount to insurrection against a government, then fine. I still must insist that just such an 'insurrection' in the form of a reformation was needed against the oppressive hegemony of the catholic church. The laudable tolerance of the catholics in Poland cannot somehow erase the intolerance and persecution of the Church in other areas. Rome could have prevented all such inquisitional persecution using it's tool of excommunication but it never did so. In light of this I see the blood that flowed following the Church's attempt to crush the reformation to be entirely on the heads of the Church heirarchy.