Monasteries and Madrassas: Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, and the Middle Ages

Crisis ^ | July 26 , 2006 | H. W. Crocker III

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"Bosh."

Yeah, that's about as well reasoned, well researched, as deeply detailed, logical, and referenced as your other posts in this thread.

Thanks for showing you've come to the table with nothing to offer. If that isn't a perfectly symbolic representation of the intellectual worth of Protestanism what is?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

"Great revolutions are rarely bloodless, but those wars resulted in freedom of religion."

Where? What country in the Protestant world had freedom of religion in 1550? How about 1600? England? Nope. Scotland? No. Wales? No. Northern German states? Nope. Scandinavia? No. Where exactly do you find freedom of religion as a direct product of the Protestant Revolution?

If you want to make an argument for indirect religious freedom, I'm right there with you. The problem is that that came about because of INDIFFERENTISM and that lead to atheism and agnosticism on a scale never before seen. Sounds like a mixed bag to me.

"As for the Enlightenment, we all benefit from the ideas of the period."

What ideas and how do we benefit?

"One of those was the scientific method that gives us things like computers and the Internet."

The roots of the scientific method are medieval you know - especially Occam's Razor.

"I am not giving up any of that, so I appreciate many ideas of that period, although not uncritically."

Good.

"I am not a Catholic apologeticist, so we will not agree about the meaning of specific periods or events. But the ideas forged in violence during the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment made it possible for Protestants to found the United States."

Ah, America, the great Protestant homeland? America would be different, but not necessarily worse if founded by Catholics. And to think, you said I needed to lose my prejudice? LOL!

"And it is why those Protestants allowed millions of Catholics to immigrate here."

Allowed? You have forgotten the Nativist movement. You also forget we were here BEFORE you. There were Catholics in the Americas BEFORE Protestantism even existed. And when waves of Catholics immigrated to "Protestant" America they weren't all that well treated either.

"And I think this is an idea few Catholics appreciate. Each to his taste."

So we should appreciate the fact that your ancestors let our ancestors in? Why thanks for letting us Catholic folks in to your otherwise exclusive white anglo-saxon protestant homeland, sir! Wow, I sure hope you enjoy your cross burning later tonight.

[AlbionGirl]

I think you're both fair, and right in much of what you write.

One of those was the scientific method that gives us things like computers and the Internet. I am not giving up any of that, so I appreciate many ideas of that period, although not uncritically.

Bears repeating, as we pointificate on the 'inferior' state of of the 5-day work week, and the 'dreaded' system the Protestants are responsible for that gave us so, so much.

You know when the Huegunots were driven out of France due to serious persecution, the economy nearly collapsed because they were the clock makers, etc. C.S. Lewis made the comment that almost all great leaps in society have been advanced by the middle class. I've not studied that, so I can't really elaborate, but the reason I bring it up is that those clock-makers were dedicated to work not because of greed, but because they offered their work to God as gratitutde.

But the ideas forged in violence during the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment made it possible for Protestants to found the United States. And it is why those Protestants allowed millions of Catholics to immigrate here. And I think this is an idea few Catholics appreciate. Each to his taste.

I was Catholic, but no more, however, I appreciated the Protestant founding of the United States a great deal even when I was. I'm an immigrant who made her official pledge of allegiance to this country in 1974, when I was 19. Acquiring my citizenship is one of the greatest memories in my life. It moved me considerably, even though I had to renounce my allegiance to Italy in the process, because that's they way the oath was structured at the time. Don't know if it's the same now.

It goes without saying, that the Protestants bestowed upon the Catholics a grace as it relates to their allowing Catholics in, that Catholics would have never afforded Protestants. Never!

The Reformation took place because it had been brewing for centuries. It is a shame to see the relentless fissiparity in Protestant America, but it is one of the prices of freedom. That being said, in my quest to find where it is that I belong, I see that some Protestant churches are doing what they can to restore what they now think should probably have been preserved.

The fruits of Protestantism are good. In fact, you could argue that, like Democrats, they are victims of their own success. I think you could argue further, that the Reformation saved the Catholic church from further debasing itself.

Just my thoughts, stripes, as I try to get some solid footing.

God bless.

[vladimir998]

stripes,

I apologize for the cross burning comment. That was uncalled for on my part. I guess I just don't like being made to feel like a barely tolerated guest in my own country.

[Mr. Lucky]

If you do a Google search on the term "life expectancy England 1200", it appears that the average life expectancy of a landowning male in 1200 would be about 31 years.

[Conservative til I die]

Puritans and other Protestants were not joyless people.

Burning witches was fun.

[Conservative til I die]

As your list shows, there were few universities until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries--late in the Middle Ages. And who were those who attended? The sons of wealthy aristocrats and later rich merchants from the growing towns who could afford the tuition.

I would say this was true of the university system for all people up until probably the last century.

[Conservative til I die]

The point is that an article about reform in Islam was also a Catholic screed against Protestants. Really a cheap shot.

It was titles "Myths about Christianity...and the Middle Ages". A lot of the mythmaking came from the Protestants about the Catholic Church. Much of it viciously slanderous and libelous.

[Petrosius]

Actually, until the 17th century very few aristocrats went to university. Their position and wealth in society was based on land, not education. Most of those who went to university were from the class of the sons of merchants, artisans and rich peasants (yeomanry). As founded, students to Oxford and Cambridge had to pay as they went and lived in private halls. In the late Middle Ages, a number of endowed colleges were established, mostly by the nobility, to offer communal housing and scholarships for the poor to attend. It is from these that the present system of colleges that characterized the English universities developed. There was also a large number of students that were sent by religious orders. These too were, more often than not, not from the aristocracy.

[kawaii]

I suspect that under a ridgid observation of church Holidays folks had more manditory time off than they do under the EU, and frankly with the church in charge of most social outreach (as opposed to a government department) they probably had a lot better attention to social needs.

[stripes1776]

It goes without saying, that the Protestants bestowed upon the Catholics a grace as it relates to their allowing Catholics in, that Catholics would have never afforded Protestants. Never!

Excellent point. I am glad to hear your experience of coming to America. It makes these posts worthwhile. And as for C.S. Lewis, he is one of my favorites: his writing on Christianity, his fiction, his literary criticism, his historical studies of the literature of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Just my thoughts, stripes, as I try to get some solid footing.

A very gracious reply. I think you are rather solid indeed, and I have gotten more from your posts on other threads than you will probably ever know.

Yes, God bless.

[vladimir998]

That could be.

[Nihil Obstat]

It goes without saying, that the Protestants bestowed upon the Catholics a grace as it relates to their allowing Catholics in, that Catholics would have never afforded Protestants. Never!

It may interest you to know that Maryland was founded by and for Catholics in 1634. They allowed Protestants to settle there.... but by 1689 the Protestants had put severe restrictions on Catholics.

It was against the law for a Catholic to hold public office or even to vote.

They also made it illegal for Catholics to educate their children in their faith, or worship in public. Those laws lasted for almost 100 years.

Just so you know.

[bert]

He left out the part about the Catholic Church being corrupt to the core and the reformation was largely about saving souls from corrupt churchman.

The change in Islam is being led by the corrupt Mullahs in Iran.

[Nihil Obstat]

this might interest you -

The Social Order Before and After the Protestant Reformation

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1191

[RobbyS]

There was no more freedom of religion in 1750 than there was in 1450, not even in supposed havens of free dom such as the United Provinces. What happened was the division of Europe into two relgious cultures and the subordination of church to state in every country. As for the Enlightenment that was a consequence of the Scientific Revolution, not a cause, and it ended in two very different revolutions, the Americans and the French. The French was another kind of religious war. English Protestants were so horrified by
the Terror, which aimed to suppress Catholicism by main force, that they put aside their own deep prejudices and took in Priests and nuns by the hundreds. The American revolution produced religious liberty in a form friendly to Christianity. If you want to thank a Protestant reformer for religious liberty , thank John Wesley rather than the likes of Luther or Calvin. He rather than Locke or Voltaire or even Madison is to be thanked for making toleration a practical matter, since evangelicalism made made the theological isues of the Reformation moot.

[stripes1776]

As for the Enlightenment that was a consequence of the Scientific Revolution, not a cause, and it ended in two very different revolutions, the Americans and the French.

You can argue this both ways. History isn't like a physics experiment where you put in force A and out pops result B (unless you are a Marxist.) What you have are ideas animating people, not laws leading to inevitable conclusions. I don't find the chicken and egg problem very interesting.

As for the American and French revolutions, there is also a bit of early Romanticism in these movements. The Enlightenment endorsed the rule of kings, so where do these ideas of liberty, democracy, and the importance of the individual and his testimony come from? Well, we say the Enlightenment, but it's a bit of a contradiction if you don't admit the variety of ideas in that period.

This is why I think the modern trend to put history into the social sciences is a big mistake. It belongs to the humanities, and it requires someone with good story-telling abilites to write good history. Social scientists usually don't have this skill and write the dullest prose, as well as distoring history in the process.

[stripes1776]

There was no more freedom of religion in 1750 than there was in 1450, not even in supposed havens of free dom such as the United Provinces. What happened was the division of Europe into two relgious cultures and the subordination of church to state in every country.

Why is it that some people think that when a god gives birth to a new offspring, it has to appear fully formed like Athena out of the head of Zeus? In this period there were regions that could choose which religion would be valid in that region. That is a step forward from no choice at all. The baby is only a baby. Sometimes who have to wait and see what he looks like when he grows up.

[AlbionGirl]

It may interest you to know that Maryland was founded by and for Catholics in 1634. They allowed Protestants to settle there.... but by 1689 the Protestants had put severe restrictions on Catholics.

Yes I was aware of that, but the point I was making and which this adds to, is that a Protestant King granted a tract of land to Catholics who wanted to establish a place of their own in the New World. He granted them that privilege. The founder of Maryland would probably liked to have kept Protestants out, if he could have, but he couldn't really do that as a Protestant had granted him the tract of land. As I understand some of the rules that were agreed upon when there was a good mix of both Protestant and Catholics in Maryland was that each camp couldn't deride each other's heroes or saints, etc. That there remained enmity between the camps is certain, but I don't think that impacts my point at all.

[Diego1618]

Yes I was aware of that, but the point I was making and which this adds to, is that a Protestant King granted a tract of land to Catholics who wanted to establish a place of their own in the New World.

Nice rebuttal.....

I recall that Americans migrating to Texas when it was still held by Mexico were required to become Catholics. This may have only applied to property owners...I'm not sure.

I was thinking how strange it would be if Catholics were required to live only in Maryland....today! It just hit me funny....I almost fell off my chair. I don't think we could squeeze them all in....LOL.