Posted on 03/31/2006 9:09:57 AM PST by Tarkin
I would argue that they were far worse for two reasons: dissension from orthodoxy in Inqusition Spain was not illegal - dissension was accompanied by unconscionable disabilities (being forbidden to own real property except in certain restricted areas, ineligibility for various offices and honors, disqualification from numerous professions, exile, etc.) but torture and death were circumscribed to dissenters who concealed their dissent.
And of those accused, more than 75% were acquitted by Inquisition courts and freed by their own recognizance.
A disgustingly brutal and immoral system - but enlightened compared to Stalinist Russia, where the very fact of dissent was fatal and every trial ended in an execution.
Their religion just didn't have a theology.
At this point we're begging the question - since professing, as Element187 does, a "belief in science" is a religious profession as well by the vaguest definition.
But your larger point is well taken.
You seem to imply that if everybody would just think scientifically world peace would erupt all over.
I would expect such a rigorous thinker as yourself would have arrived at that conclusion by independently evaluating vidence, not by taking someone else's word for it.
Or maybe you're just John Lennon.
Science didn't start any crusades to force people to believe anything by a sword.... Science is continously proving religions wrong... wow adam and eve never existed, this earth has been here for billions of years, dinosaurs have existed long before humans. Virgin Mary was banged by her husband, there is no such thing as immaculate conception... Moses didn't split any water.... all the stories in the bible are complete foolish .. perfectly fine for a 5 year old to believe. If there was a 'God' why is there no proof of it in todays world?? Why is there no more miracles? Why did the only priveledged people in this world lived 2000 years ago to 'witness' ... Simple answer, there is no such thing as miracles .. Jesus was merely just a talented illusionist like David Copperfield, but you don't see anybody worshipping him.... But what do I know, I don't allow myself to be worshipped by a book written by cavemen.
Now look what you did, Taliesan. You made E187 so angry he forgot English.
There actually has been a study along the lines of this article. It was done by studying the health of European monarchs, who by tradition have had millions of people praying for them every day and every week.
The attempt to excuse the Inquisition as less evil (by numeric count) than communisiom is amusing. It ignores the question of what a religion founded by Jesus was doing murdering and torturing people, and it ignores the question of why the religion itself didn't prevent it from happening.
Obviously theocracies can be evil, regardless of the nominal religion they spring from.
The attempt to excuse the Inquisition as less evil (by numeric count) than communisiom is amusing. It ignores the question of what a religion founded by Jesus was doing murdering and torturing people, and it ignores the question of why the religion itself didn't prevent it from happening.
Obviously theocracies can be evil, regardless of the nominal religion they spring from.
You asked and answered your own question. By definition, a non-coercive religion cannot "prevent" theocracies.
What do you mean by a non-coersive religion? I would say that a religion that threatens eternal punishment for incorrect beliefs is being coersive.
It's not a matter of count, but of the principles at work.
The idea driving the inquisition was that there was such a thing as a Christian commonwealth and that Christian profession was a requirement for full citizenship.
Lying about your religious profession in 16th century Spain was like sneaking over a border fence in 21st century America.
Illegally claiming citizenship under false pretenses.
In Stalin's Russia, simply disagreeing with the state's ideology was grounds for immediate execution, as was simply being inconvenient (i.e. being a kulak).
In inquisitorial Spain an openly professing Jew or Protestant was not subject to execution, but deportation instead. Servetus was deported from inquisitorial Spain - even though he openly denied the Trinity he was not executed but exiled. He was burned in Protestant Geneva.
Concealing one's religious allegiances was the capital crime.
Of course the numbers of murdered victims are far higher in the Stalinist regime, because the principles behind the punishment are different.
I don't think people should be tortured or hung for faking US citizenship, but that doesn't mean that I think it is wrong to have sanctions. Some will say it is cruel and arbitrary to sanction someone because they happen to have been born outside US territory, but all societies have to have limits for the sake of preserving public order.
And, to be clear, I am not justifying inqusitorial Spain. Good riddance to it. Just pointing out that there are different varieties of injustice.
I would also point out that inquisitorial Spain is a limit case among professing Christians for very specific historical reasons, whereas pretty much every officially atheist country in history has been awash in the blood of innocents.
One that believes its own earthly adherents can't force authentic conversion, which has been the position of most Christians in history.
Whether or not God will coerce you in the after life is a separate question. If the prospect of that offends you, then just be sure your a priori issue with the concept of a creator hasn't marred your intellectual objectivity.
It's always good to see there are still apologists for the inquisition. Have a nice day.
Incorrect. He professed belief in "the spirit of Aryan man" not Christianity.
He persecuted the Christian churches the whole time he was in power, denigrated Christian teaching publicly, lived openly with a woman not his wife, and had Christian pastors like Bonhoeffer murdered and Christian pastors like Michael Faulhaber placed under house arrest.
He had every Jesuit priest in German imprisoned and most of them killed at Mauthausen.
He appointed as a Reichsminister of religion Alfred Rosenberg, who was an atheist dedicated to the replacemnt of Christianity with "Aryan humanism."
Rosenberg's 30 point plan for the German churches was to replace the Bible with Mein Kampf and the cross with the swastika.
If Hitler was a Christian, then so was Che Guevara.
It can't be apologized for - it was thoroughly immoral.
But ask yourself a question: why was the inquisition so powerful in Spain, while it was a joke in France and powerless in Rome itself?
The answer to the question shows that the Inquisition was an anomaly - not a natural outgrowth of Christian profession.
As I said, a limit case, not a typical phenomenon.
But if you'd prefer to lie about me and slander me rather than think critically about history, be my guest.
You can't hold a polite conversation and that's OK. It's not a skill everyone possesses or was meant to possess.
Generally speaking, professing something means publicaly proclaiming to believe it. Perhaps, in the spirit of a polite discussion, you will document from Hitler's published writings and public speeches, something to document your claim.
Christians imprisoning and going to war against other Christians is pretty much the history of Europe. The Eastern and Western Popes were frequently at each other's throats.
In Mein Kampf there are many passages that essentially make this claim.
That's pretty public.
Perhaps, in the spirit of a polite discussion, you will document from Hitler's published writings and public speeches, something to document your claim.
I'll get you a citation.
Christians imprisoning and going to war against other Christians is pretty much the history of Europe.
Correct, but war is not a phenomenon unique to Christendom, while the Peace of God movement that humanized and limited warfare for much of the High Middle Ages was a unique Christian phenomenon.
The Eastern and Western Popes were frequently at each other's throats.
Define "frequently." (I'm assuming by "Eastern Pope" you mean "Ecumenical Patriarch").
There were about four or five direct confrontations and only one military incident, which was not sanctioned by either party, between 863 and 1453.
From 1453-1963 there was no real contact to speak of and since then there has been a rapprochement of sorts.
No human institution is perfect.
You can find fault with any human institution; especially one that has existed for nearly 2000 years through very dark and difficult places in human history.
Hitler was a lapsed Catholic who actively despised the Church.
I'm still waiting for the citation promised in post #56.
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.