Skip to comments.Can a Pro-Life Activist Defend The Inquisition?
Posted on 10/22/2013 10:38:54 AM PDT by juliosevero
Pope John Paul II, author of the encyclical The Gospel of Life, was a pro-life champion and he did not defend the Inquisition. On the contrary, he had the honesty to ask forgiveness for what the Inquisition and its agents were.
This explicitly pro-Inquisition Facebook comment could be seen as an isolated case, but it was liked (or signed) by some Midia Sem Mascara columnists.
Let us return now to the comment by Jack Man, which shunned this central problem:
I suspect that what this person knows about the Inquisition is what Protestants and antiCatholics have said about the Inquisition. Most of that is what we now term “disinformation.”
My understanding is that pimping your own blog is grounds for being banned from FR.
No, the problem is when bloggers post excerpts and force readers to click on the link to read the rest, driving hits to their own blog. That’s blog pimping.
As long as a blog post is posted in the Bloggers subforum, in its entirety, I don’t think FR has a problem with it.
Would really like to see her numbers on this claim.
A sterling example of how the Democrats (and Socialists in general) operate.
Not really. While all Catholics were on the Cavalier side, the great majority of Cavaliers were Anglicans of various types.
The Stuarts weren't as a dynasty Catholic. Mary Queen of Scots was Catholic, but never ruled England. James I and Charles I were both aggressively Anglican and Protestant. Charles II was a sort-of Anglican most of his life, converting to RC on his deathbed. James II was Catholic, but only ruled something like 4 years before being kicked out.
Why would any Pro-Lifer defend the Inquisition?
Just wait and see. I know a few who might try.
Why would anyone defend the inquisition?
The best I’ve heard anyone say is “it wasn’t that bad”. But no one wants to be on the receiving end.
Its one thing to recognize that people are human and the totalitarian tendencies run deep. Its another to imagine that the guy lighting the fire under the stake is doing so under the urgings of the Holy Spirit.
The inquisition did give Monty Python and Mel Brooks good opportunities for Ironic comedy routines. Vincent Price also got a good movie out of it, by way of “The Fall of the House of Usher” by way of Edgar Allen Poe.
They were, normally relatively kind to the unfortunate mentally ill people who were represented as witches. They were more cruel to Jews who falsely pretended to convert for tax benefits. Tax dodging is usually harshly punished.
Uh...how was the Inquisition *genocide*, exactly?
You're joking right? You must be joking.
Let me ask you one question that will tell me much of what I need to know going forward.
Did the Inquisition go after Jews for being Jews? Answer me that question.
Nobody defends the Spanish Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise.
Because the stupid is a mile deep when it comes to this period in history, and there's nothing quite so insufferable as Christians posturing and preening their contempt for the Inquisition when they have zero historical knowledge of it and don't know the slightest thing about what it was and WHY it was.
I'm happy to debate specific instances & trials, some of which were outrageous....and I'll note that the Church itself voided and threw out one of those: the trial of St. Joan of Arc which had numerous canonical irregularities.
But as for the generality of the thing, try reading some primary sources and some good modern historians like Jeffrey Burton Russell.
First of all, you have to understand one thing. Heresy back then was a SECULAR crime punishable by THE STATE. This was a carryover from pagan law codes (why do you think Socrates was executed, and the early Christians?).
However, this arrangement was extremely rife with abuse: if I am your magistrate, all I have to do is get you taking for 15 minutes on the Trinity and I can pretty much guarantee you will say something heretical. "How many operations are there in the Godhead? How many wills?" Oh, lookee here, you're a heretic, let me condemn you to death and take your land.
The Inquisition was begun to reform this process. The Church said no way...you secular authorities have no right to charge and try people for heresy. That's the CHURCH's job, and the Church's alone.
So the Church took over the fact-finding phase of the trial from the state. It basically made the determination whether the person was an obstinate heretic or not and then...AND THEN *passed that finding onto the secular court*. If you read the trials of the day you find on a guilty conviction the phrase:
"And he was handed over to the secular arm to be burned"
We can argue whether this was a good policy or not. In point of fact though it was a reform, it had its own problems that we know about....especially in Spain. It used torture (just like the secular courts of the day) which not surprisingly, ended up in false confessions.
But genocide? That's absurd. The Inquisition had--if I remember right--something like a 95% acquittal rate. Ninety five freaking percent. Plenty of Catholic saints were brought before the Inquisition (St. Ignatius), they investigated, found nothing wrong, and turned them loose again. The amount of people it condemned to death--and remember, it wasn't killing them, the STATE was killing them--was on the order of a few thousand, perhaps up to 10,000. Over hundreds of years.
And since it was an ecclesiastical court, you HAD TO BE A CHRISTIAN to be brought before it. It had zero, ZERO authority over Jews and Muslims...except those who became Christians for whatever reason.
I’d say no, of course not. I’d also say, if it came up in the context of a pro-life/pro-abortion discussion: You brought the Inquisition up like it excuses abortion? [cue Sam Elliott] Yer a special kind of stupid, aren’t ya?
Surprise and fear. Our two weapons are surprise and fear.
We can argue whether this was a good policy or not. In point of fact though it was a reform, it had its own problems that we know about...
Mainly if you're one of the ten thousand.
and ruthless efficiency...
My understanding of the Inquisition is the stated goal was a molehunt, not genocide.
Common Jews were not targeted, and had nothing to fear. All those brought before the Inquisition were officials in the Spanish government, because the king wanted only Catholics in official positions. Still, there never is a reason for torture.
The Church did not condone the torture. You had a situation similar to the Vietnam war where local officials acting in the name of the Church went off the deep end, but it was not a general policy of the Inquisition. The Church is still responsible because it put them in that position, and that is why the pope apologized.
There is a huge difference between saying torture happened during the Inquisition and saying it was the purpose of the Inquisition. Even during the Inquisition, those brought forth preferred the Church courts to the State courts, because they had better rules of evidence and had a better chance of getting out unscathed.
Also, the difference between the Holocaust and the Inquisition is in the original documents that survive from the times. No serious researcher depends on an edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica as their source because it is subject to editorializing. The original documents trump any encyclopedia or a stack of PhD opinions, and the original documents do not bear out the Inquisition as a death campaign against the Jews.
Indeed, the Holy Office in the Vatican today is the inheritor of the responsibilities of the Inquisition. The whole point, and the only point, is to determine who is Catholic and who is not. Torture is not part of the program.
Uh...how was the Inquisition *genocide*, exactly?
Actually it wasn’t genocide it was “religiocide”...
Ever read Fox’s Book of Martyrs?..
Who were executed by the STATE.
"for these causes, as hardened and obstinate in thy crimes, excesses and errors, WE DECLARE THEE OF RIGHT EXCOMMUNICATE AND HERETIC; and after your errors have been destroyed in a public preaching, We declare that you must be abandoned and that We do abandon thee to the secular authority, as a member of Satan, separate from the Church, infected with the leprosy of heresy, in order that you may not corrupt also the other members of Christ; praying this same power, that, as concerns death and the mutilation of the limbs, it may be pleased to moderate its judgment; and if true signs of penitence should appear in thee, that the Sacrament of Penance may be administered to thee. "See what happened there? The Bishop excommunicated Joan..turned her over to the government, and prayed that it might moderate its judgment (probably insincerely).
You want to debate this, learn what you are debating first.
I see you have no replies yet.
When they light up the fire under your feet, that will be a comfort I'm sure.
Jesus Christ was executed by the state.
Again, if you want to make the point that people are human, and that the totalitarian instinct runs deep, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to point out that other religions and other movements have used force and intimidation to squelch dissent, you are very right. If you want to point out that in other times and other places it was good catholics getting torched, rather than good catholics doing the torching, then go for it. There probably are plentiful examples to choose from.
If you want to make the point that, all things being equal, getting torched by the state for your beliefs is not that unusual in the overall scheme of things, this last century proves you right.
If you want to make the claim that the guys doing the torching did so under the urgings of the Holy Spirit, or that the ones who turned them over to the state to be torched did so in obedience to the Holy Spirit, then no. Don't go there.
Hostility between Christian sects is, to me, tragic, but it was baked in early back when dissenting could get you killed. Thank God, and I mean it, that religious dissent between Christian brothers these days nets you some snarky comments on an internet board. You wouldn't believe it sometimes to read the commentary, but we actually (mostly) like each other. There was a day, though, when it wasn't like that.
I am I and my Circumstances, Ortega y Gaset
There is a deep discrepancy and polarization regarding the Catholic Inquisition; an event which is probably one of the most hated events in the history of mankind. In stark contrast, the Protestant Inquisition is never mentioned, much less condemned. We must distinguish between what is myth and what is reality. Historical events as complex as the horrors committed 500 years ago in the name of religion, must not be judged through the ethical and moral standards of our times, but rather they should be analyzed in accordance with the prevailing norms of the times in which they occurred. There is not defense for the Inquisition, either Catholic or Protestant. But these events should be approached analyzing the circumstances prevailing at the time with an auto-critical attitude, leaving preconceived ideas behind. Today we recoil in horror remembering the Holocaust or the rape on Peking, but, Would be accepted uncritically today the total obliteration of Dresden, an open city with no military or strategic value, by incendiary bombs, or the nuclear attacks to Hiroshima y Nagasaki?
THE SPANISH INQUISITION VS. THE PROTESTANT
The Inquisition was established in Spain in 1242 and was not formally abolished until 1834. His strongest activity is recorded between 1478 and 1700, during the reign of the Catholic Kings followed by the Hapsburgs. In terms of the number of executed, the studies by Heningsen and Contreras 44,674 causes open between 1540 and 1700, concluded that stake in the burned 1346 people (less than 9 people per year throughout the Empire).
The British Henry Kamen, known non-Catholic scholar of the Inquisition Spanish, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its six years of existence. Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.
The wars of religion in Germany and France lasted for more than one century and there were hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Inquisition was created by the Kings of Spain to avoid that you happened the same.
Sir James Stephen calculates that in 300 years there were in England 264,000 sentenced to death for various crimes. About 800 per year (more than two per day).
Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism: in 1525 preached the nobles: “to kill wound, decapitate, disgorge as many famers you can” Happy if you die in it, you die in obedience to the word divine”. More than one hundred thousand peasants perished.
In Protestant Saxony, blasphemy was death penalty. Calvin sent burning Servet (Catholic physician who discovered the circulation of the blood, and who were eliminated by “counter” to the Bible with such discovery) and many others.
In Germany, more than 100,000 witches were burned. Even children of seven years and the dying elderly. A single judge burned in 16 years 800 witches (an average of 50 people a year).
In 1560 the Scottish Parliament decreed death penalty against all Catholics.
Here are some articles of the English code for Ireland:
“Catholic teaching to other Catholic or Protestant shall be hanged.”
“If a Catholic acquires land, all Protestant has the right to deprive him.”
“Perpetual banishment to every Catholic priest; those who evaded it, are half hanged but kept alive and then dismembered”. What followed?
The Calvinist communities of Paris, Orleans, Rouen, Lyon, Angey at general synod in 1559, enacted death penalty to the heretics.
Do you not know that United States owes its foundation to Puritans fleeing religious persecution in England?
The Spanish Inquisition was not free of the ideas of his time, and participated in general cruelty. But you keep in mind the following points: According to American historian, Philip Wayne Powell (Tree of Hate), barely more than one hundred persons were executed in Spanish America as a result of Inquisition action during its some 250 years of formal existence. (31 by the Tribunal of Lima, 47 in Mexico and 3 in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia).
Stark contrast with the Protestant persecution of Catholics in Elizabethan England (in 70 years) where were tortured and executed 130 Catholic priests and 60 laymen, or a total 250 killed by the state if one includes those dying in prison.
The last execution of the Inquisition was finally carried out in Spain on July 26, 1826. According to Ernst Schafer, a German Protestant researcher, the number of Protestants in Spain condemned to death in 300 years, from 1520 until 1834, was 220; of them, only 12 were burned.
You see: does not touch nor to one per year. What happens with the image of the Inquisitor stood in front of endless rows of pyres with doomed? It becomes that he is lying.
I don’t have a clue why a pro-lifer would defend the inquisition.
In the Spanish Inquisition, it was responsible for religious offences or heresy, blasphemy, bigamy, and other specific crimes against the faith, committed by Catholics of birth or converted from other religions. Neither the Jews nor the Muslims fell under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The penalties imposed by the Inquisition were applied by the civil authority, while the ordinary civil courts dealt with civil and criminal offenses.
When a person was denounced by two witnesses began an investigation without them knowing it, including its past, its reputation, its predecessors, their businesses, and partners. If evidence were “clear, certain and specific” (were required the concurrence of the three) that could be certain the charges, then began the process. Then it was cited to the Court or else be arrested him if there was danger that could run away.
It could only remain prisoner if (1) five witnesses, with satisfactory evidence, testified against him. (2) If had decided by common agreement the Bishop, the inquisitors and the Prosecutor, after investigations, which had wrapped heresy in the case; (3) by Decree of the Bishop, under certain conditions. In all cases the approval of the Supreme Council was needed until he could a defendant being arrested. Finally, two doctors had to examine the mental state of the accused.
The prisoner had to receive a view of your case within three days of his arrest. They were then submitted to a judge swearing to tell the truth. Are you reported the charges raised against him, evidence and is urged him to confess and be reconciled with the Church. If the accused refused, then received another view in ten days. Still given another chance if it remained stubborn. After that last chance began the interrogation.
Torquemada’s instructions were that the inquisitors had to be “cautious, and charitable”, looking for nothing more than the truth. During the interrogation should be present as defenders of the reo two Clergy, not members of the Court. After four days read them his statements and the defendant could make any clarification and are granted many new views he requested.
When he finished the interrogation, the Prosecutor presented their evidence to inquisitors, asking his judgment in accordance with the law. Then read you to the accused, from beginning to end, the accusation, with a pause at each article so that the accused could replicate, while a notary took note of their bowel movements.
If he was poor, was assigned to the defendant, a lawyer paid by the Holy Office. If he chose not one determined, then the court appointed one well prepared and great reputation who would defend him with great zeal, loyalty, impartiality and good faith.
The defense counsel had access all minutes them of the trial, could rebut charges of the Prosecutor wings, dismiss witnesses, request new information or new views, and had full access to the accused, which in turn could also see copies of the process, although the names of the witnesses were omitted. The defendant could, however, appoint all his enemies and all those who might have a motive to harm him, things that the Inquisitor took into account.
Unfortunately, torture was normal in those times and, despite all the falsehoods against Torquemada, he tried to limit it and mitigate its, clarifying that it should not be used as a means of punishment but to obtain absolute proof of something that had already been tested more than reasonable doubt. The accused had to have been contradicted in serious matters being evident bad faith, and evidence of prevailing witnesses.
If you came to the conclusion that you should resort to torture, a doctor would examine it to determine if their physical condition could bear it. A doctor had to be present and had to suspend torture if the doctor so ordered.
Catholics who were tied to the legs of four horses during the reign of Elizabeth I and James I of England, were not offered no legal protection. Times of great barbarity were when attached to a monarch English the privilege of the divorce by the beheading of his wife.
The British historian Henry Kamen, known scholar non-Catholic of the Spanish Inquisition, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its six years of existence. Kamen adds that “it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one”.
The British historian Henry Kamen, known scholar non-Catholic of the Spanish Inquisition, has calculated a total of some 3,000 victims over its SIX HUNDRED years of existence.
Kamen adds that it is interesting to compare the statistics on sentences to death of civilians and inquisitorial tribunals between the 15th and 18th centuries in Europe: for every one hundred death sentences handed down by courts, the Inquisition issued one.
I dont. But, being aware of the multiple facets of human nature, there can be no doubt that they are out there. They should carefully study the fate of the German People, in the immediate post WWII.
I would argue the contrary. Totalitarian tendencies (extreme hostility to contrary thought) represent the most shallow reaction imaginable.
Because I tried to read your article and I have no idea what the heck you were trying to convey.
I am a Protestant. My very existence is, itself, heretical. Talking not required.
I am not in the habit of thinking in terms of heresy. Per instructions, I leave decisions about heresy to a higher authority. Do not misunderstand. I have thoughts about heresy, but I do not seek to inflict others with those thoughts. Nor do I think to punish others who hold thoughts contrary to my own.
Nor I, Alamo-Girl.
Thanks for the comeback.
You’re quite welcome, dear YHAOS!
I wouldn’t presume to speak for the Holy Ghost on this. But I would note that blasphemy, idolatry, breaking the Sabbath, and witchcraft are all crimes punishable by death in the Old Testament. If you have a civilization that truly believes in the divine nature of its religion, it only stands to reason that a person who murders people’s souls is as guilty of a heinous crime as someone who murders the body.
We have lost sight of the horror of heresy I think. We tend to minimize it as simple disagreement of beliefs, and we don’t realize the heavy cost we pay for this attitude in society.
Look, I’m not asking you to agree with the world-view of the Inquisition here, I’m just asking you to understand it.
In many Christian societies where you had a dominant church—Protestant or Catholic—it was thought that murdering someone’s SOUL by luring them into heresy was an even worse evil than murder of the body.
We can’t relate to it largely because we don’t have a single dominant church here like they did in medieval times, and Calvin’s Geneva, and Tudor England, and the Old Testament.
Anyway, what you said is pretty much what most pious Catholics would have said back in the day. “Per instructions, I leave decisions about heresy to a higher authority.”
I understand the defensiveness of some Catholics. They have a decent point about the whole “Black Legend” bit about the Spanish Inquisition, Spanish conquests and massacres, etc. It indeed exaggerates the wickedness of Spain and by extension Catholics in general as compared Protestant countries.
However. Protestant “persecution” of Catholics in England and other Protestant countries consisted largely of civil disabilities. Powerful Catholic nobles frequented the English court throughout this period, while there were no Protestant nobles, or open Protestants at all, in Spain. They would be arrested and quite possibly burned alive.
Catholic persecution of Protestants was exponentially more harsh and widespread, and lasted much longer.
Sorry if that offends our Catholic brethren, but facts are facts.
Sad to say, but anything that reveals Catholicism in a bad light offends Catholics.
There's a difference between being offended, and in trying to set the record straight. There have been a ton of recent studies on this time period using the actual records of this time that show the Inquisition wasn't all what we have been led to believe. But willful prejudice runs deep, and some people prefer to hang on to salacious myths and "Black Legends" rather than come up to speed on the actual history based on documented facts.
Logan, you have the right to your own opinion, but not to defame the Church legacy by distorting historical facts. Anti-Catholic bigotry is well and alive when fanatics base their hatred in ignorance.
As professor Philip Wayne Powell stated: When Spaniards expelled or punished dissidents, this came to be known as bigotry, intolerance, fanaticism, and a cause of their decline. When Englishmen, Dutchmen, or Frenchmen did the same thing, it is known as unifying the nation or safeguarding it against treason or foreign conspiracy. The killing of Indians by Spaniards became atrocities, or ruthless extermination; but when Englishmen ran Irishmen to death by the thousands in their own bogs, or slaughtered them after surrender, this was called the Irish problem.
Dr. Philip Wayne Powell, Emeritus Professor of history at the University of California, in his research on the “Black Legend” titled the Tree of Hate, (a book that every American should read) asserts that the study of 16th century Europe clearly reveals the universal pattern of cruelty, intolerance, and inhumanity which characterized the social, religious, and economic life throughout the continent...Examples of this were the reigns of Elizabeth I of England and her successor James I which were known for their most barbarous cruelty. However, Dr. Powell affirms “that the Spain of the conquest period was a deeply civilized nation by all discernible European standards of that day, ...In jurisprudence, diplomacy, monarchical, religious and imperial concepts, and total culture, Spain was a European leader throughout the sixteen century and in much of the next.
The University of Salamanca and the College of San Gregorio of Valladolid, recognized the Indians rights to keep their own laws and territories.
In Spain, well-respected people like Cardinal Cisneros, and a group of professors of the University of Salamanca also fought for the rights of the Indians, among them was the famous theologian Melchor Cano. Another group of professors from “Colegio de San Gregorio” in Valladolid also played and important role in this struggle.
However, in the history of the human rights the works of the Dominican priest, Francisco Vitoria, are paramount. Considered the founder of modern international law, Vitoria published in 1532 his famous treatise De Indis in which he established the right of the Indians to their territories and laws and denied to the Spaniards any right to be in the Indies at all, other than that of every man peacefully to go and trade everywhere and the duty of every Christian to convert the heathen.
This document would have transcendental repercussions not only in America but also throughout the whole European jurisprudence. Spain showed the world a humanistic vision unequaled at that point in time. American historian Lewis Hanke corroborates this when he attests that: ...The clash of arms was not the only struggle during the conquest. The clash of ideas that accompanied the discovery of America and the establishment of Spanish rule there is a story that must be told as an integral part of the conquest, and endows it with a unique character worthy of note... The widespread criticism permitted, and even stimulated, by the crown really constitutes one of the glories of Spanish civilization... It is to Spain’s everlasting credit that she allowed men to insist that all her actions in America be just...
It is no wonder that by the end of the 18th century the famous German scholar and naturalist Alexander Humboldt declared: The work of the mines -he pointed out- is absolutely free in the whole kingdom of New Spain; no Indian, no Mestizo, can be forced to work in the mines. It is absolutely untrue that the Court of Madrid sent convicts to America to make them work in the gold and silver mines...This policy was in striking contrast with that of England in her North American colonies. The transportation of English felons to America was also a practice of the British Government... in some instances felons were not the only involuntary emigrants from England whose labor was appropriated. Towards the end of the 18th century it became common practice for captains of English and Dutch vessels to entice ignorant peasants from England, Ireland and Germany, by flattering promises of wealth, to accompany them to America, where they had no sooner arrived than they were sold as bondsmen to defray the cost of their passage and entertainment.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Von Humboldt, after traveling throughout the American Continent wrote a four volume treatise titled Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain published in London in 1811. In this work he attested to the riches of the Indians which they preserved throughout the 300 years of Spanish rule. (13) In the Kingdom of New Spain, affirmed Humboldt, at any rate for the last thirty years work in the mines is free. Nowhere are the people allowed to enjoy more completely the fruit of their labors than in the mines of Mexico; no law can force the Indian to choose this kind of work or to prefer this or that mine; if he is displeased with the owner of the mine, the Indian forsakes it to offer his work to another one who pays him more regularly or in cash. These facts are correct and comforting and should be known in Europe...the Mexican miners are the best paid of all the miners. He receives six to seven times more for his labor that a Saxon miner. A carpenter in New Andalucía is paid per day more than a Saxon miner per week.
The way Indians were treated varied according to the place, but generally they were treated better in the Kingdom of New Spain than in Peru. With great vision, Hernán Cortés, who had studied law at the University de Salamanca, tried to save the Indian monuments and with his own money paid for the construction of schools and hospitals providing for them in his will. On the other hand, Francisco Pizarro, an illiterate adventurer without an education, was not as capable handling the extraordinary enterprise that had been provided by his fate. According to Lesley Byrd Simpson, renown North American scholar in Latin America: It seems to me that the average stature of the viceroys of New Spain was so great that no country to my knowledge was ever more fortunate in its rulers...(Mexico) enjoyed a long life (three hundred years!) of relative peace, stability, and prosperity, in marked contrast to the squabbling nations of Europe. Some of the men who made this possible are worth our knowing.
Theres a world-view? Singular? One world-view? Is this world-view accurate? Factual? Largely indisputable? Commonly accepted? Forgive me, but I dont think so.
Im just asking you to understand it.
Understand what? Your world view of the Inquisition? No? Then, whose world view of what?
. . . we dont have a single dominant church here like they did in medieval times, and Calvins Geneva, and Tudor England, and the Old Testament.
Youre speaking of Religious Establishment, I take it, and the one establishment that our society has seen fit to prohibit. The prohibition against the establishment of religion is an onus that falls entirely on the state. The Regime may not establish a religion or prohibit its free exercise. The prohibition cannot act on individuals or private institutions; it may act only on the Regime. The Constitution limits and defines only the powers of government. It is the one thing that changes a regime into a government.
Im very much aware of the multiplicity of Judeo-Christian doctrines that have sprouted in Libertys soil, allowing a variety of doctrines to flourish, but I know of no Judeo-Christian adherent who does not, as an article of faith, believe that God created Mankind and the Universe. Do you know of such a person? We all seem to agree on the essentials (depending, of course, on how essentials are defined). Why limit your observation to the Judeo-Christian religion? Does it not apply equally to all religions? Well . . . almost equally.
What of other doctrines, perhaps less obviously religious? What have we learned about the dangers of religious establishment, that we can apply to other doctrines? Such as, for example, of the Political Correctness Establishment?
I’m talking about the view of the world that the medievals had—and really most Christian civilization.
Slight correction—the Constitution limits the power of the *federal* government in this regard. Many states had established churches into the 1800s.
I don’t see anything wrong with religious establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.