Politically Incorrect Debate of the Day

Christianity as a "religion of women" is a worthy and substantial point to interject into such a debate.

Modern scholarly readily concede how Christ’s expansion of women’s rights (No divorce enabling women’s economic security and ensuring social status in a pagan society- care for widows and orphans, exaltation of marriage & curbing of male sexual license)

It was precisely the effect of such policies to encourage responsible fatherhood and stable family formation that...

#1. Appealed to Pagan women
#2. Facilitated a demographic upswing among Christians.

Posted by Fitz | August 28, 2007 11:21 AM

Without endorsing Derbyshire's views, I have to say that the opening paragraph of Spencer's response is so jaw-droppingly dishonest that I quit reading it. Not a great advertisement for his book.

Posted by Led | August 28, 2007 11:39 AM

As to Derbyshire, Muslims are no more unable to live as Americans than Catholics. I'm off to get a terrific pork sandwich from an efficient, Muslim-owned-and-operated store (honest to God, I am, right now).

America is good. We don't need to repatriate the Jews or the blacks or the Muslims or the Catholics. People like it here.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 28, 2007 11:46 AM

This is sorta my field (the early Christianity stuff, not the religion of peace / religion of war stuff) - so let me say, you're both right.

Christianity seems to have been, from an early period, a religion of women and slaves. Women slaves in particular - see for instance that letter of Pliny in which female slaves apparently held honored positions as deaconesses. 1 Peter seems to reflect a community of mainly slaves and women - see the complete lack of instructions given to slave-holders in the household code.

Now, Christianity's success obviously is not a function of women and slaves taking control of the reins of power, or something, but it's a historical oddity that he have a bunch of stuff preserved about the early Christians that reflects such humble, oppressed beginnings.

Posted by DivGuy | August 28, 2007 11:47 AM

At times like these I find it necessary to point out that Islam is as much an East Asian religion as a Middle Eastern religion, with half of the world's Muslims living to the east of Pakistan. These Asian Muslims are overwhelmingly nonviolent, moderate and modernized. That sort of thing tends to get lost when people talk about how Islam is an inherently violent religion. You don't have to fear, say, the average Muslim in Thailand.

Posted by Freddie | August 28, 2007 11:49 AM

What a bizarre essay by Derbyshire. He seems generally correct about Spencer's apologetics being historically insufficient, then he re-directs the argument into immigration, and the ability of secularists to fight jihadism.

If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?

Really? The arbiter for the quality of an argument should be which will be a stronger defense against the loony-right proposal of imminent dhimmitude?

---

I will say that it supports my general lefty-ish critique of the New Atheism - the same man who wrote one of the big books of New Atheism also described the post-9/11 wars as "the battle of everything I hate against everything I like." The proximate enemy of the New Atheism may be conservative protestantism (which it conflates with all religion), but the far enemy that underlies all of it is Islam, and the same enlightenment certitude that fights religion in science's name is what calls for righteous war to liberate the Muslim world by killing lots of Muslims. Dawkins' book is chock full of allusions to the encroaching danger of Islamofascism. These are precisely the liberals that worked to enable the disaster in Iraq.

Posted by DivGuy | August 28, 2007 12:02 PM

You don't have to fear, say, the average Muslim in Thailand.

That is a bit misleading.

I think it is correct to say that Islam can be a peaceful religion in the right circumstances, since it appears that Thai Muslims were peaceful until recently, and much of the worldwide jihad is a product of Saudi Arabia. But it is also true that it is much easier to recruit Muslims willing to engage in (or be supportive of) violent jihad than it is to recruit analogous representatives in other religions, particularly Christianity.

Posted by Mike S. | August 28, 2007 12:26 PM

Elvis,

As to Derbyshire, Muslims are no more unable to live as Americans than Catholics.

Do you think that would still be true if there were 30 million Muslims living concentrated in a handful of cities?

And what of Britain? Obviously there are plenty of Muslims who are able to live peacefully as British citizens. Just as obviously there are a substantial number who cannot.

Posted by Mike S. | August 28, 2007 12:31 PM

S Mike writes: "Obviously there are plenty of Muslims who are able to live peacefully as British citizens. Just as obviously there are a substantial number who cannot."

And the people who were bombing clinics (and the Olympics)and shooting abortionists in this country were invariably Christians.

Fanaticism breeds violence no matter what the creed.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 28, 2007 12:41 PM

Fritz:

Excuse me but how "no divorce" was "encouranging" women rights? How "curbing down sex male liscence" (specially in a religion that gave us the idealization of women as "virgins") has anything to do with protecting women rights? Exaltation of marriage - an instution that was mostly a form to ensure patriarchal domination- has anything to do? You christian conservatives have some really wicked idea "of women rights" as ensuring the status of child to women to be utterly under the tutory men.

Posted by Sergio Méndez | August 28, 2007 2:03 PM

>>>>These are precisely the liberals that worked to enable the disaster in Iraq.

You're arguing that Dawkins enabled the war in Iraq??? Heh.

Posted by Sufa | August 28, 2007 2:03 PM

Now, concerning the discusion....there is something that puzzles me, and is this mantra -repetead ad nausum- by christian conservatives that it was christianity that set the philosophical bases for modern science. I beg to disagree. It was greek philosophy (pagan, pre christian) - adopted by christianity- that set the philosophical bases for modern science. Most of what is worthy of christian philosophy has its roots back into the greeks. There is nothing properly christian in the mindset of modern science. Even the idea of an ordered universe set in motion by a christian god is unnecesary and contradictory from a christian perspective: after all God intervenes and alters the rules of nature at will; no real principle of uniformity can be stablished from christian roots to understand the universe.

Posted by Sergio Méndez | August 28, 2007 2:14 PM

This may give a clue what Dawkins actually thinks about the war in Iraq:

" Dear Americans,

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don't let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden's dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.

Before 9/11 gave him his big break - the neo-cons' Pearl Harbor - Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous. 9/11 gave America a free gift of goodwill, and it poured in from all around the world. Bush took it as a free gift to the warmongers of his party, a licence to attack an irrelevant country which, however nasty its dictator, had no connection with 9/11. The consequence is that all the worldwide goodwill has vanished. Bush's America is on the way to becoming a pariah state. And Bush's Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists.

In the service of his long-planned war (with its catastrophically unplanned aftermath), Bush not only lied about Iraq being the "enemy" who had attacked the twin towers. With the connivance of the toadying Tony Blair and the spineless Colin Powell, he lied to Congress and the world about weapons of mass destruction. He is now brazenly lying to the American electorate about how "well" things are going under the puppet government. By comparison with this cynical mendacity, the worst that can be said about John Kerry is that he sometimes changes his mind. Well, wouldn't you change your mind if you discovered that the major premise on which you had been persuaded to vote for war was a big fat lie?

Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out.

As the bumper stickers put it, "Re-defeat Bush". But, this time, do it so overwhelmingly that neither his brother's friends in Florida nor his father's friends on the Supreme Court will be able to rig the count. Decent Americans - there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world - please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don't let us down."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 28, 2007 2:18 PM

I think it is ridiculous to label ANY large religion a religion of "peace" or a religion of "war".

The beliefs of Muslims and Christians, now and historically, are so diverse that you can find support for either thesis depending on what groups you pick. The same can be said for holy scriptures.

This is part of a more general trend by Christians who don't like Muslims (for reasons raising from legitimate policy disagreements to simple dislike of people different than themselves) itching to say that there's something different about Islam. Of course, there is a lot different about Islam, but not so that one can generalize about the two faiths in this way.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 28, 2007 2:25 PM

I think it is correct to say that Islam can be a peaceful religion in the right circumstances, since it appears that Thai Muslims were peaceful until recently, and much of the worldwide jihad is a product of Saudi Arabia. But it is also true that it is much easier to recruit Muslims willing to engage in (or be supportive of) violent jihad than it is to recruit analogous representatives in other religions, particularly Christianity.

Ok, I think this is where people tend to think politically when they should just think deductively. What percentage of the population of Thai Muslims do you think are actually engaged in violence? Probably very, very small. You could certainly say that Islam produces more small groups of horrid wackos. But, look, there are maybe 600 million Asian Muslims. How many are actually involved in terrorism? A tiny, tiny percentage. The vast majority of them aren't. That may be a banal obervation, but it's worth repeating.

Posted by Freddie | August 28, 2007 2:30 PM

Sergio and Fitz,

I think that to say that Christianity ushered in a new era of respect for women's rights is a stretch. Without doubt, the status of women was better off under Christianity than it had been in pagan Rome, or in Greece, or probably in any other society between the invention of agriculture and the start of the modern era. (Hunter-gatherer societies may be a different story). But by the our standards today, of course, the early Church did place a great many restrictions on women and in some ways continued the patriarchal worldview that they had inherited from pagan Rome.

Forbidding divorce certainly helped some women, but equally hurt others (the ones trapped in abusive or unhappy marriages.) Early Christianity upheld a patriarchal model of marriage in which wives were to be subject to their husbands. It also forbade contraception, which took from women the option of planning their families. I would not say that Christianity is inherently patriarchal, or that in its essence it is detrminetal to women, rather I would say that in these regards Christianity, like other religions, was influenced by its time and place. It didn't immediately liberate women, rather I would say that it established a mode of moral reasoning and a framework for looking at the world (universal human dignity, etc.) which, many centuries later, would eventually serve as the grounding for establishing women's rights.

Sergio, one major thing that Christianity did do to improve the status of women was the cult of virginity (and the institution of convents) by providing an alternative to patriarchal marriages. See Orlando Patterson, 'Freedom in the Making of Western Culture' for details.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 28, 2007 2:55 PM

Christianity certainly is more difficult to use as a direct justification for political violence, or for conversion by the sword, than Islam. I think in this regard it would be fair to say that it's a more peaceful religion. (Christianity took 300-400 years to become the hegemonic religion in its region, Islam took only 100.)

However, Christians have been quite willing to join militannt movements for political reasons grounded in their conceptions of the ideal political order, natural justice, etc. Inasmuch as you think that moral beliefs, political ideologies , visions of the ideal society, are colored by one's religious views, then Christianity served as an indirect inspiration for a fair amount of political violence too, and continues today.

This is not always a bad thing, of course, since political violence and militancy are sometimes justifiable. John Brown, for example, was explicitly motivated by his Christianity.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 28, 2007 3:05 PM

Christianity certainly is more difficult to use as a direct justification for political violence, or for conversion by the sword, than Islam. I think in this regard it would be fair to say that it's a more peaceful religion. (Christianity took 300-400 years to become the hegemonic religion in its region, Islam took only 100.)

However, Christians have been quite willing to join militannt movements for political reasons grounded in their conceptions of the ideal political order, natural justice, etc. Inasmuch as you think that moral beliefs, political ideologies , visions of the ideal society, are colored by one's religious views, then Christianity served as an indirect inspiration for a fair amount of political violence too, and continues today.

This is not always a bad thing, of course, since political violence and militancy are sometimes justifiable. John Brown, for example, was explicitly motivated by his Christianity.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 28, 2007 3:06 PM

Christianity seems to have been, from an early period, a religion of women and slaves. Women slaves in particular - see for instance that letter of Pliny in which female slaves apparently held honored positions as deaconesses. 1 Peter seems to reflect a community of mainly slaves and women - see the complete lack of instructions given to slave-holders in the household code.

i think you have to stipulate how early though, right? during the very early period christianity was a jewish sect, but we assume that by the time of constantine the vast majority of christians were from gentile backgrounds. i think to the first approximation ross' contention is probably correct by about 300; a religion which might have had 5-10% penetration couldn't have been just a religion of the slaves. additionally, it would have been only urban slaves, not the vast numbers who were chattel on the sicilian plantations, as it seems christianity had a weak rural presence rather late into the christian antique period (as did institutional religion in general).

finally, re: women & christianity. i've read some material which suggests that the disproportionate representation of women might be skewed by the efforts of later writers such as st. jerome, who wished to elevate the role of female patrons. as for women's rights, pre-christian european culture was diverse. there is a big difference between the way athenians treated their women and the way celtic women behaved. the effect of christianity on the rights of women have to be weighted in relation to the world view it was replacing. the reformation of the legal code under justinian resulted in some increase in the role of and power of women in the courts, under christian influence, but it also crystallized their second class status.

Posted by razib | August 28, 2007 3:56 PM

btw, my "middle class," i mean the semi-literate artisans, merchants, etc., of the roman cities. when christianity became the enforced (as opposed to simply the favored) religion of the roman state around 400 there were some efforts to place priests in front of newly christianized aristocrats who spoke "good" latin. the indication here is that the typical christian priest was used to preaching to a somewhat down-market audience. that being said, the spread of christianity with the codex (as opposed to scrolls) also suggests at least a minimal importance to text which makes it unlikely that the religion was rooted in those who were on the margins of subsistence.

Posted by razib | August 28, 2007 4:12 PM

An interesting collection of comments. I think the "religion of slaves" conclusion owes more to Gibbon and Nietzsche than to actual sociology, does it not? After all a substantial proportion of the Roman legions in the period of Constantine were Christian; Diocletian, his nearly immediate predecessor, felt the problem sufficiently wide-spread enough to impose decades of official repression upon Christians throughout the Empire - where it was one of literally hundreds of (albeit often indistinct and heterogenous) other sects. If (besides simple political scapegoating) the basic justification for such public repression was the fact that Christians - like the Jews, who had been massacred - refused to participate in the public devotional rites considered to underpin Rome's martial and general success, clearly the Christian population must not have been limited to women or slaves, who had little legal volition, if you will, during the Imperial period.

Regardless, I am a little puzzled at the response to Spencer. His work deals primarily with providing his readers with a basic education in the doctrine of Islam - usually the Sunni, orthodox version - and it is a doctrine that is... Written Down. One can read the Quran, the hadith, the Sunna - these are all, in multiple forms and translations, online, and made available by Muslim sites of many varieties. A plain reading of the doctrine, as well as a rudimentary knowledge (say, a chronological outline) of the initial Islamic conquests and initial political organizations, should pretty clearly show that Islam is not a religion of peace: it is a religion of conquest and submission to Allah's law as delivered to Muhammad and adjudicated by various legal schools subsequently. I don't know how anyone can be offended by this; just because certain people do not believe violence is not justified does not make it more reasonable to impute peaceful - Christian, even - intentions to others in complete ignorance of their belief system. Muslims believe, according to doctrine, that where Islam rules, there peace is - because Allah commands that right action consists only in following Allah's law. Allah's law is very specific; observant Muslims themselves commonly, for example, only eat with the fingers of their right hand because Muhammad did so.

In any case, go - go read foolios. It's all right there in black and white and it certainly does not confirm the "liberal" (i.e. crypto-Christian) pacifism than which apparently no system of thought is allowed to have higher aspirations - except of course the Christians'. I mean just look at that Jesus guy: conquest, pedophilia, multiple wives, ordering slaughters, condemning people in the other life AND in this life, ordering everyone to submit to his laws.... Yikes. What a brute!

Posted by Dan | August 28, 2007 5:32 PM

Oh, I'm talking way before Constantine, sorry if that wasn't clear.

I was talking about early Christianity in the range of 50-200. By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were everywhere, throughout every class. Christianity never would have been a successful mass movement if it weren't diversified, and if it didn't have rich and powerful patrons. And as always happens, these rich and powerful were the primary people to guide the movement in that period.

But the evidence of the early centuries - before it was a particularly noticeable movement at all - points to a movement that was particularly appealing to women and slaves. Pliny's letter of 119 is practically the only external sources we have on Christians from that period, and it's got two female slaves in positions of authority in the assembly.

Posted by DivGuy | August 28, 2007 6:14 PM

Sergio Méndez

Well Rabiz has already done a good job of providing some of the necessary context and details.

“Excuse me but how "no divorce" was "encouraging" women rights?”
Before Christ invocation against divorce, one could remarry and leave ones wife destitute – bereft of social standing & income.

“How "curbing down sex male license" (specially in a religion that gave us the idealization of women as "virgins") has anything to do with protecting women rights? “

By restricting sex to the institution of marriage it discouraged the abuse of women as mere sexual chattle.

“Exaltation of marriage - an institution that was mostly a form to ensure patriarchal domination- has anything to do?”

Warmed over feminist mantras don’t take the place of substantiated thought.

Posted by Fitz | August 28, 2007 6:35 PM

Fitz and Sergio,

No doubt SOME women benefited from the invocations against divorce, and the restricting of sex to the institution of marriage; and no doubt other women, who might have desired an unmarried sexual relationship, or to escape being trapped in an unhappy marriage, were hurt by it. Even if men may be somewhat more eager to pursue divorce or premarital intercourse, there are certainly many many women who have always desired these things as well. Medieval literature is full of these themes. If you don't believe that these are legitimate desires to begin with, then you may not be particularly sympathetic to women who felt them, which is all right, but it should be recognized that not everyone shares your view.

i don't think it can be denied that even if you agree (and to a large extent, i do) that marriage was a good and expression of a couples' love and commitment to one another, and a good environment for raising children, it was also (through much of human history) a form for ensuring patriarchal domination. There are lots of ways, even in a Christian context, that one could see marriage as both things as once. One might reason that God brings good out of evil, infusing grace into people and institutions that were evil in their inception, and making something good out of them. (Analogous to St. Augustine's theory of the Roman Empire- evil in its inception, turned by divine grace into something good). One might also reason conversely that the Devil always tends to corrupt human institutions, and did the same thing with the institution of marriage. But I don't think the cause of historical accuracy is served by denying that marriage was for most of its history a relation of patriarchal domination- even if it was other things, good things, as well, and even if it doesn't inherently need to be.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 28, 2007 8:25 PM

Hector writes: "Christianity certainly is more difficult to use as a direct justification for political violence, or for conversion by the sword, than Islam. I think in this regard it would be fair to say that it's a more peaceful religion."

Some would say that the Middle Passage, in which millions of Africans died and those that were brought to the US had Christianity forced upon them, argues against your point, Hector. The New World natives also had very different experiences with cross-carrying thieves, both in North and South America.

Let's not forget why Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome - it was for political ends and the military alliances which followed.

And it may be a "more peaceful religion" now, but the weird subcurrent of SuperChristianity underlying the right's little crusade in Iraq shows that the Christian religion is still a potent force for convincing stupid people to resort to violence.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 28, 2007 9:03 PM

Fitz writes: "Warmed over feminist mantras don’t take the place of substantiated thought. "

It's funny how someone who believes in transubstantiation pretends "substantiated thought" is actually important.

As for the "Jesus wuz so gud for wimmen" argument, even if that were the case, the Church has done a good deal to put the boot down on the chicas ever since.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 28, 2007 9:09 PM

I think the point is that Christianity can be (and has been) twisted and subverted for violent ends (isn't that what athiests and agnostics are always saying, that Christians aren't acting like true Christians in the spirit of the Gospels?) whereas with Islam, sometimes it feels like you have to twist the scriptures around to make it not about violence, extortion, and subjugation.

For example, many would say that the Catholic Inquisitors twisted the scriptures to persecute Muslims, Jews, non-believers, etc. At the same time, which fewer people seem to care about, the Protestants of Northern Europe tortured and killed many more than the Catholics for witchcraft, another example. But of course the Gospels had to be tortured themselves to support these actions. There's nothing in the Gospels or Acts or the Epistles about forced conversions, torture, executing witches or heretics, or extortion. In fact, Jesus himself is tortured and executed on heresy charges.

In contrast, the Qur'an reads: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Sura 9. This has been read to give non-believers three choices: conversion, dhimmi status along with payment of the jizya, or fight to the death. It's possible, as has been argued, that the words "fight" and "warfare" are metaphorical, but it's still a long way from "Peter, put away your sword" and the words "until they are in a state of subjection" and "recognize the superiority" are not very encouraging on that score. This is only one example, but the Gospels call on believers to give their belongings to the church, while the Qur'an mandates payment of the jizya by non-Muslims. That's a big difference.

I would not take that to argue that Islam is a religion of violence or that it necessarily cannot be a religion of peace. The nature of the world at the time of the birth of Islam just didn't mesh with the way we think about war and violence today. War and subjugation were integral parts of the world at the time, and that was how folks related to each other and settled disputes. Just look at the Old Testament, no one is saying that Judaism is a religion of war and yet Jews in the OT were instructed to wipe out entire cities, including women and children.

So I don't think it's at all fair to say that there's something inherently evil about Islam necessarily - rather, it seems to me that there's something inherently groundbreaking about Christianity (of course, I would think this, being a believer - I recognize others may not agree). Put it this way, Jihadists may not be acting in the true spirit of Islam, but they can make a much better textual case, based on scripture, for themselves on that score than the Inquisitors could. Some might say that this amounts to no difference, but I find it matters to me.

Posted by hugo | August 28, 2007 9:42 PM

After all a substantial proportion of the Roman legions in the period of Constantine were Christian;

actually, no. in fact the army was one of the last redoubts of paganism (see theodosius ii's revokation of the explusion of pagans from the officer corps in the early 5th century).

Posted by razib | August 28, 2007 10:09 PM

In regards to slaves, let's remmeber that in the Roman Empire some of them were actually quite well off (though lacking legal rights and hence always in danger of severe abuse). Roman slaves could own their own property and could buy their way out of slavery-- and many did. And because "trade" wass considered too gauche for proper citizens much of the economy was in slaves' hands, some of whom grew fantastically rich as a result. There were also many well-educated slaves in Rome, and learned folk who lacked employment often sold themselves as tutors in rich families. The term "slave" implies some downtrodden, ignorant, bottom-of-the-pile proletariat. In the mines and on the latifundia that was true in Rome, but the slaves who became Christians tended to be the educated, urban almost-bourgeois slaves.

Re: Excuse me but how "no divorce" was "encouranging" women rights?

Women were routinely cast off and left penniless (if they didn't have families who would take them in) when they lost their looks or their child-bearing ability. Stopping this practice was indeed a pro-woman policy given the reality of ancient economies and demographics.

Re: Exaltation of marriage - an instution that was mostly a form to ensure patriarchal domination- has anything to do?

Again, you need to see this against the standards of the times. Christian teachings about marriage improved women's status, period. Also left unsaid by Ross was the influence of monasticism-- for the first time in history large numbers of women were free to reject a life based on their sexual abilities (whether as wives or prostitutes) and became valuable simply as persons in and of themselves. I realize the concept of celibacy strikes out own age as a form of torture, but in the context of the ancient world freeing women from the necessity of the brothel or the birthing chair was extraordinarily radical.

Re: Forbidding divorce certainly helped some women, but equally hurt others (the ones trapped in abusive or unhappy marriages.)

Even these ladies had an out: they could join a nunnery and so become emancipated from their husbands. (In later times this was often abused, with husbands wishing to be rid of undesirable wives forcing them to take the veil)

Re: It also forbade contraception

Contraception back then was either highly unreliable or dangerous to one's health. Banning it was not exactly a bad move in that era.

Re: which took from women the option of planning their families.

???
when did women have that option? Certainly not in antiquity when they had children at the whim of their husbands, who also had the choice of keeping the child or exposing it. And guess the gender of the majority of exposed infants.

Re: it seems christianity had a weak rural presence rather late into the christian antique period

One reason why Christianity loomed much larger than its numbers suggest: that 5-10% of the total population translated into a much larger fraction, even a majority, in some cities.

Re: Fight those who do not believe in Allah...

When talking about Islam, can we please remember that "Allah" is simply Arabic for God (or litterally "The God" since Arabic requires the article where English does not)? One would not, presumably, translate the Gospels into English while leaving Greek "Theos" in place instead of translating it as "God". Why do this with Arabic? And yes, Arabic Christians say "Allah" too. The Orthodox trisagion hymn we chant in the Antiochean Orthodox liturgy begins in Arabic "Qudusun Allah..." ("Holy god..."). We do not bow to Mecca though when we sing it.

Posted by JonF | August 28, 2007 10:24 PM

Hugo,

You raise an excellent point. Islamic scriptures say much more explicitly about war, conversion by force, the death penalty for apostasy, etc. than Christian scriptures do. One reason for this, of course, is that Christian scriptures don't say very much explicitly about most moral issues; they lay down some basic moral precepts, and the rest is left for interpretation- either by individual believers, or by the Church hierarchy, or by the broad Church tradition, depending on your beliefs...

I disagree with you though that the Inquisitors couldn't make a good case based on Christian scripture and tradition for executing heretics. Actually, given their premises, they had quite a strong argument. that's why Christian states had the death penalty for heretics for so long. If one really believes that 1) heresy constitutes a denial of Jesus Christ and His divine grace, 2) to deny Jesus Christ is to sentence oneself to eternal hell, 3) the Church is an infallible guide as to what constitutes heresy, then the practice of torturing or even executing heretics in order to save them from the flames of hellfire, becomes perfectly logical. As much as we would not like to admit it, I don't think that I could persuade a medieval scholastic that executing heretics is wrong, purely on the basis of logical argument. I would probably have to appeal to negative arguments about how we may not always be able to perfectly know divine truth, that there are grounds for debate over what the scriptures say, that errors have been made in the past (executing St. Joan of Arc, for example) and that executing people for their religious beliefs contravenes our own natural affections and sympathies, and thus is against natural law.

I certainly don't think that the Scriptures promote modern liberal values (not that modern liberal values are necessarily good); rather I would say that they are flexible enough that there can be lots of debate over what they relaly mean, and that the Inquisitors as well as their opponents can both seek a basis for their position in the Christian scriptures. Also, since Christian morality is impossible for any state to follow in toto, each country and each age may be closer to the esence of Christian morality in some regards, and further away in others, the Middle Ages no less than our own. With Islam, that is much harder since the Qur'an is taken as the literal uncreated word of God, dictated to Muhammed, and since Shariah law is taken to be unchangeable. this is part of what makes Christian social morality through the ages such an interesting debate, there is much more actual grounds for debate than there is with Islam.

JonF and Hugo, I have a historical question for both of you- what were the actual philosophical/theological grounds on which Christian governments stopped executing 'heretics'? I know that the actual political institution of 'cuius regio, eius religio' arose for some rather cynical political motivations, but I was wondering if there were some actual theological debates around the time about the legitimacy of the Inquistion and similar institutions.

JonF, no doubt many contraceptives were fairly harmful- I'm aware though that some herbal contraceptives were used in premodern times in various parts of the world, supposedly a now-extinct plant called 'silphium' in Roman times as well, do you know anything about that?

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 29, 2007 11:31 AM

Moe,

The conquest of South and Central America was done for largely religious motives, and it remains a permanent stain on the Christian conscience. It's worth remembering though that most of the victims of the Spanish and Portuguese colonists died of introduced diseases, not genocide. Contrary to the English and Dutch, the Spanish and Portuguese wanted to rule over the Indians, not to kill them. While the Spanish destruction of native culture and religion was certainly horrible, there was not genocide.
In North America, there certainly was genocide. It's worth remembering though that North America, in contrast to Latin America, was settled mostly for explicitly secular and economic reasons, and by two of the most secularized nations in Europe (Holland and England). Even France, though still a very Catholic country, was ruled over by what was in practice an increasingly secular monarchy (see Cardinal Richelieu and the Thirty Years' War.) During the mid 19th century, Argentina and Chile did become genocidal towards the Indians of Patagonia, however these were during periods of alternating Catholic and secularist governments, someone would have to look up if genocide was more intense during periods of Catholic or periods of anticlerical governance.
To the extent that anyone was standing up for the Indians of Central and South America, the Church was it. Think about the work that the Jesuits did in Paraguay, to form the Guarani Indians into a collectivist, literate, mini-utopia in the jungle, and think about how the Jesuit reducciones were abolished by the fiercely anticlerical Marquis of Pombal.
So history shows that the more religious and less secular colonial regimes in the New World were actually much less cruel and genocidal towards the Native Americans than were the largely secular countries of Britain and Holland. Doesn't exactly do much for your argument that the depredations of European colonialism were due to Christianity.
As for slavery, it's interesting, isn't it, that Europeans only started practicing slavery after the reformation, i.e. in the early modern period, when the Chruch was beginning a long decline in its influence. Did you know that the Popes were opponents of the slave trade? Moe, tell me how many slaves did Europe import during the high point of medieval Christendom, say around 1300?
And as for the Iraq war, the Catholic and even more the Orthodox churches, and as far as I know the mainline Protestant ones, were hostile to the invasion.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 29, 2007 11:50 AM

Some would say that the Middle Passage, in which millions of Africans died and those that were brought to the US had Christianity forced upon them, argues against your point, Hector.

Question: who started the African slave trade?

Posted by Mike S. | August 29, 2007 12:34 PM

One reason why Christianity loomed much larger than its numbers suggest: that 5-10% of the total population translated into a much larger fraction, even a majority, in some cities.

sources? (i'm actually curious to read more books on the topic, so that's why i ask)

The conquest of South and Central America was done for largely religious motives, and it remains a permanent stain on the Christian conscience.

i think this is debatable. they used christianity as one of their justifications, but it isn't like christianization went very deep for many generations, nor did the church have a free hand (otherwise the commonplace brutality might have been mitigated some).

It's worth remembering though that North America, in contrast to Latin America, was settled mostly for explicitly secular and economic reasons, and by two of the most secularized nations in Europe (Holland and England). Even France, though still a very Catholic country, was ruled over by what was in practice an increasingly secular monarchy (see Cardinal Richelieu and the Thirty Years' War.)

i think this is all anachronistic. just because 17th century holland and england had more religious toleration than spain doesn't mean it was more "secular." and it seems that the settler colonies had mixed motives. virginia and thes southern colonies were secular enterprises, but surely the puritans and other groups like quakers had religious motives as well (and tried to convert native peoples to christianity).

Posted by razib | August 29, 2007 1:04 PM

Re: Question: who started the African slave trade?

Muslim Arabs, I believe. Actually, I'm not sure to what extent there may have been a slave trade during the centuries when the Middle East was Christian. I know there wasn't much of one to Europe. Does anyone know anything about the status of slavery under the Byzantine Empire and the Crusader states in the Middle East?

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 29, 2007 1:15 PM

Presumably, the African slave trade was started by Africans themselves.

Slavery was, after all, absolutely endemic to the ancient world. Sumeria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, India, the Maya, the Aztecs - you name it. It's actually quite difficult to come up with any civilizations that did *not* practice it. And it's even more difficult to come up with any civilizations that felt the least bit guilty about it. Even the early Christians took it for granted as part of the natural order of things - though St. Paul at least admonished slave-owners to treat their slaves kindly.

Sub-saharan Africa, so far as we can determine, was pretty typical. Then as now, it was a land of perpetually warring tribes and petty kingdoms, which routinely enslaved their prisoners. Some were kept, used and abused, others were sold.

According to Sheldon M. Stern, historian and director of the American History Project for High School Students at the John F. Kennedy Library, "virtually all Africans brought forcibly to the Western Hemisphere in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had been enslaved [by other Africans] long before they left Africa...Historians estimate that ten million...abducted Africans 'never even made it to the slave ships. Most died on the march to the sea'—still chained, yoked, and shackled by their African captors—before they ever laid eyes on a white slave trader. The survivors were either purchased by European slave dealers or 'instantly beheaded' by the African traders 'in sight of the [slave ship’s] captain' if they could not be sold."

Those who embarked on the "middle passage" were the lucky ones.

Posted by Steve Burton | August 29, 2007 3:17 PM

Hector writes: "As for slavery, it's interesting, isn't it, that Europeans only started practicing slavery after the reformation, i.e. in the early modern period, when the Chruch was beginning a long decline in its influence. Did you know that the Popes were opponents of the slave trade? Moe, tell me how many slaves did Europe import during the high point of medieval Christendom, say around 1300?"

Feudal systems in Europe had homegrown slaves called serfs, Hector. I think that has to be recognized before Christians congratulate themselves on such a score.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 3:41 PM

Building on what Hugo said, I think a major difference between the New Testament and the Koran is their assumptions as to what their religions' place in the world would be. Christianity may not have been a religion of slaves, but it was a religion of people who expected to be persecuted for the indefinite future. Nowhere in the New Testament are there explicit directions as to Christian rulers should act towards non-Christians or Christian heretics, whether to persecute or to tolerate, because that was the least of the concerns of the persecuted Christians of the Roman Empire. The Koran, on the other hand, assumes that Muslims will be in a position of temporal power and will have the capacity to wage war on their enemies.

Posted by James Kabala | August 29, 2007 3:45 PM

S Mike quotes and writes: "Some would say that the Middle Passage, in which millions of Africans died and those that were brought to the US had Christianity forced upon them, argues against your point, Hector.

Question: who started the African slave trade?"

It doesn't matter, since I was talking about the Middle Passage.

This response by S Mike reminds me of how wingnuts also like to blame the drug problem in America on the foreign supply side almost exclusively - those evil Colombians! The vicious Afghan warlords and al Qaeda! Mexicans! - when the real problem, as far as we should be concerned, is on the demand side.

But I guess pointing out that the huge demand for slaves in the New World is a Lefty Anti-American act - even if most of it took place before America even existed.

But I guess blaming it on Muslims is something the S Mikes of the world are accustomed to.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 3:48 PM

While I usually avoid using Wikipedia as a source in these discussions, I think this is an interesting and well-sourced overview. As usual, Christians (sorry, Hector) tend to give an overly rosy view of Christian activities down through the ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 3:58 PM

ML&J: which passages, in particular, in the Wikipedia article strike you as decisively favoring your point of view here?

Posted by steve burton | August 29, 2007 4:22 PM

but the weird subcurrent of SuperChristianity underlying the right's little crusade in Iraq

Hrm. I don't think this is quite reasonable -- the reasons for the unwise Iraq War don't seem to have had much to do with traditionalist Christianity. A lot of Christian right types fellow-traveled along, but they don't seem to have been leaders -- this was Cheney's war, not Falwell's war. And your paleoconservatives like Daniel Larison, no slouches at being a traditionalist Christian right, were aginst from the very beginning. And crunchy-ish Christian right types like Ross and Dreher bailed out fairly early, as things go. So, no, I think the Iraq War suckered in a lot of Christian right types, but it wasn't particularly motivated by anything Christian.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | August 29, 2007 4:36 PM

I mean, if you have a Crusade of SuperChristianity that a couple of popes (one of whom is the ultimate bete noire of the liberal, it seems) vehemently oppose... you got something funny going on.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | August 29, 2007 4:39 PM

Moe,

Yeah -- maybe someone was painting a rosier picture here, but given the world state at the time, that wikipedia article sounds in places almost like a work of Christian social apologetics. What's supposed to be so damning here?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | August 29, 2007 4:42 PM

Moe,

Interesting links. It appears that slavery was quite a bit more common in the Byzantine Empire than I had thought. Deplorable, as I said. The wikipedia article does however make some interesting points:

Slavery was repeatedly prohibited by the medieval Catholic Church, without much effect.
It was illegal for a Christian slaveowner in the Crusader states to rape his female slaves, the penalty being castration. (Sorry, Strom Thurmond.)
A non-Christian slave was to be freed if the converted to Christianity (this was not always obyeyed, but it was generally the rule).
Slavery was recognized by canon law to be 'contrary to the spirit of Christianity".

One might also add that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas deplored the institution of slavery, although neither believed that, within the fallen world we inhabit, it could realistically be done away with. Aquinas noted that in the state of nature, there would be no slavery. Manumission was generally encouraged by the Church.

The Christian religion was to a large extent considered the religion of slaves in its earliest day, and talked quite a lot about exalting the slave above the master, how it was better for one's soul to be a slave than a master, etc.

And no, serfdom isn't the same thing as slavery, not even closed. Read Orlando Patterson's 'Freedom in the Making of Western Culture' for the distinction.

of course Christianity didn't do enough in its earliest days to abolish slavery, but do you really think that another creed in that time and that place would have done better? Slavery continued on quite strongly under the secular English and Dutch.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 29, 2007 6:05 PM

Razib,

the power of religion was so weak in Holland that proverbially, during the 17th century, they were the only Europeans allowed to trade with Japan at the port of Nagasaki. The reason being they were the only ones willing to trample on a crucifix in order to do so.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 29, 2007 6:09 PM

So, my last answer was not published...ok I get the message

Posted by Sergio Méndez | August 29, 2007 6:40 PM

Sergio: This spam filter will swallow up anything. I had about ten comments in a row caught and apparently it had something to do with my e-mail address; when I started submitting instead a different address that I rarely use, the problem cleared up. I doubt if Ross is out to get you.

Posted by James Kabala | August 29, 2007 7:42 PM

Apparently even the word ‘Slave’ is a derivative of “Slavic’; the one region of Christian Europe were taking slaves was permitted by the Church. (In its battles against Muslim armies were enemy soldiers were taken prisoners as slaves and periodically exchanged for Christian soldiers taken by the other side)

Posted by Fitz | August 29, 2007 8:17 PM

I disagree with you though that the Inquisitors couldn't make a good case based on Christian scripture and tradition for executing heretics. Actually, given their premises, they had quite a strong argument. that's why Christian states had the death penalty for heretics for so long. If one really believes that 1) heresy constitutes a denial of Jesus Christ and His divine grace, 2) to deny Jesus Christ is to sentence oneself to eternal hell, 3) the Church is an infallible guide as to what constitutes heresy, then the practice of torturing or even executing heretics in order to save them from the flames of hellfire, becomes perfectly logical. As much as we would not like to admit it, I don't think that I could persuade a medieval scholastic that executing heretics is wrong, purely on the basis of logical argument. I would probably have to appeal to negative arguments about how we may not always be able to perfectly know divine truth, that there are grounds for debate over what the scriptures say, that errors have been made in the past (executing St. Joan of Arc, for example) and that executing people for their religious beliefs contravenes our own natural affections and sympathies, and thus is against natural law.

Hector -

You are correct, and I didn't mean to suggest that the truth claims of Christianity weren't sufficient to support torture or forced conversion. I wasn't sufficiently clear, but what I meant is that the methods are clearly not condoned by the NT - things like stoning, forced conversion, extortion, torture, execution, these methods are universally portrayed in the NT as negatives, and neither Jesus nor the apostles engage in them. You are correct, though, that combining the truth claims and using a little logical application (what's a little temporal torture compared with eternal damnation?) could have easily lead the Inquisitors where they got. But I think you would be hard pressed to find textual support for the methods themselves. As James Kabala points out, the early Christians clearly saw themselves as the oppressed, not the oppressors. Of course, that didn't last.

I believe the persecutors of heretics took their theological support for executing heretics from Jesus's words in John 15:
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." John 15:6. Of course, if you read this in context, it's pretty clearly metaphorical (since it is part of the "I am the vine and my Father the true gardner speech"). As for coerced conversion, Augustine saw it in "And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." Luke 14:23. To me, these are huge leaps from the scripture, which is sort of where I was going with my original comment.

To answer your question, I'm not all that knowledgeable about this, but it is often reported that the last person to be executed as a heretic on orders from Rome was Giordano Bruno, a Copernican and heretic, in 1600. But because the Church always pushed the actual punishments off onto the secular authorities, the execution of heretics continued for quite some time and ended in different countries at different times, mostly in the late 1700s. An influential Jesuit priest whose name escapes me at the moment wrote a tract condemning the witch hunts and persecutions in the early 1600s, suggesting they were still going on. And I believe executions continued into the 1800s in South America and Spain although not sanctioned by the Church. I'm not sure when the Church officially renounced executing or torturing heretics in Canon Law, but I'd be suprised if it was before 1800.

Posted by hugo | August 29, 2007 8:48 PM

But I guess blaming it on Muslims is something the S Mikes of the world are accustomed to.

We're discussing the relative proclivities towards violence of Islam and Christianity. Pointing out that the African slave was brutal, as an example of Christians engaging in violence, requires an assessment of the extent to which Muslims also engaged in the African slave trade. Since it was Muslims who originated the practice, and who engage in it to this day, it would seem that relatively speaking it is Islam that is more violent with regard to slavery.

Likewise when using abortion clinic bombers as an example of Christianity-motivated violence. On the one hand we have a handful of isolated loner-types motivated by ideology killing tens of individuals. On the other hand we have thousands of hardcore terrorists motivated by ideology killing thousands of individuals. And we're supposed to deduce from this empirical evidence that Islam and Christianity are equally likely to provoke their followers to engage in violence. I suppose ignoring the evidence in front of their faces is something the LarryMoeandJesus's of the world are used to.

Posted by Mike S. | August 29, 2007 10:12 PM

Steve Burton asks: "ML&J: which passages, in particular, in the Wikipedia article strike you as decisively favoring your point of view here?"

I'm not sure what you mean by my "point of view." I presented that article to respond to Hector's claim that Europeans started engaging in slavery only after the Reformation, which is clearly untrue based on the article.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 10:20 PM

TMoC quotes and says: "but the weird subcurrent of SuperChristianity underlying the right's little crusade in Iraq

Hrm. I don't think this is quite reasonable -- the reasons for the unwise Iraq War don't seem to have had much to do with traditionalist Christianity. A lot of Christian right types fellow-traveled along, but they don't seem to have been leaders -- this was Cheney's war, not Falwell's war."

Oh. I thought it was Bush's. He's actually used the word "crusade," which is why I used it. Then there are people like Hagee and Boylan. Dreher and Douthat aren't SuperChristians.

Perhaps the word "underlying" isn't accurate, but "interwoven with" sure fits. And I don't mean Fitz.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 10:27 PM

S Mike writes: "But I guess blaming it on Muslims is something the S Mikes of the world are accustomed to.

We're discussing the relative proclivities towards violence of Islam and Christianity. Pointing out that the African slave was brutal, as an example of Christians engaging in violence, requires an assessment of the extent to which Muslims also engaged in the African slave trade. Since it was Muslims who originated the practice, and who engage in it to this day, it would seem that relatively speaking it is Islam that is more violent with regard to slavery."

Quick, raise you hand if you think Muslims introduced the practices of slavery and the trading of slaves to Africa.

Is it really possible that there are people stupid enough to think that slavery was introduced to Africa by the followers of a Middle Eastern religion founded by a guy who died about 1300 years ago? The earliest reference I found dealing with Muslims and the slave trade in Africa involved slaves from Christian "Nubia" being sent to what is now Saudi Arabia in the middle of the 7th century.

Sheesh. I guess I've found the poster child for the Lowest Common Denominator that still thinks Dumbya Bush is the Intrepid and Visionary Defender of the West.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 10:46 PM

the power of religion was so weak in Holland that proverbially, during the 17th century, they were the only Europeans allowed to trade with Japan at the port of Nagasaki. The reason being they were the only ones willing to trample on a crucifix in order to do so.

1) i really don't think that a small number of dutch sailors can stand in for the whole nation. even today a substantial minority of calvinists don't even watch TV they are so anti-modern. should we should spanish catholicism in the 16th century through the lens of conquistador barbarities?

2) i spent a little time on google books. there is some ambiguity and confusion it seems on whether the dutch were forced to do this. some the books report that they did not do this, but others basically say this was an urban myth (spread in part by a reference voltaire made in the 18th century the practice).

Posted by razib | August 30, 2007 2:30 AM

Quick, raise you hand if you think Muslims introduced the practices of slavery and the trading of slaves to Africa.

They didn't introduce slavery to Africa, but when the Europeans ramped up their engagement in it in the 16th century, they used slave traders, routes, and practices already instituted for hundreds of years by Muslim slave traders.

In any case, the fact that slavery has existed in every human society since pre-history indicates, again, that it doesn't demonstrate that the Christians who engaged in it were especially brutal in comparison to those of other faiths.

Sheesh. I guess I've found the poster child for the Lowest Common Denominator that still thinks Dumbya Bush is the Intrepid and Visionary Defender of the West.

The "Lowest Common Denominator" is someone who gratuitously turns every discussion into a non sequiter about Bush.

Posted by Mike S. | August 30, 2007 8:13 AM

2) i spent a little time on google books. there is some ambiguity and confusion it seems on whether the dutch were forced to do this. some the books report that they did not do this, but others basically say this was an urban myth (spread in part by a reference voltaire made in the 18th century the practice).

I, too, have read that there is at least some disagreement over whether this actually happened. But I'm not sure it really matters. As far as I know, it is not disputed that the Dutch were at one point the only European power permitted to trade with Japan, exempted from the ban on European foreigners, and it was because they had never attempted to spread Christianity, of which the Japanese were deeply afraid. I agree that it may not be completely accurate to judge the entire Dutch people by these sailors, but it is believed that the complete lack of Christian influence was also what helped Dutch traders to dominate the slave trade during much of the 17th century.

I also think it's likely that the Calvanists to which you refer were in large part a reaction to the much more secular nature of the Netherlands.

Posted by hugo | August 30, 2007 8:23 AM

Hugo,

You're right about there not being explicit support in the New Testament for torture, forced conversion, etc. as well as the general tenor of the Gospels being very much against torture, extortion, forced conversion, and other violations of human dignity in the name of religion. I was only making the point that it wasn't quite as unequivocal in this regard as we would like to think, and that there was enough support (based on the truth claims) that later inquisitors could, and did, make their case.

of course, Jesus, the apostles, and the early church did condemn torture, along with forced conversions, stoning, executions, etc. (whether there is scriptural support for the death penalty is an interesting question- i think there is, but there is a case to be made for either side.) The early Church, of course, did not sanction brutal methods for several centuries, I think it wasn't until the fifth century that they even accepted the death penalty?

it's of further symbolic importance, of course, that sentencing people to torture and death, even at the height of the medieval inquisition, were done by 'the secular arm' not by the Church.

I believe that the Spanish inquisition was ended in principle when Napoleon invaded Spain, but it may have been moribund in practice before then; I was really wondering more about what were the intellectual debates surrounding the abolition of forced conversion and execution of heretics, rather than the actual political events.

Technically, of course, St. Thomas Aquinas at the height of the middle ages did not accept forced conversion; he sanctioned coercion to be used against heretics, to bring them back to the Church, not to bring unwilling pagans into the Chruch. (This wasn't necessarily much better, but at least it would have militated against the kind of thing that happened in Central and South America).

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 30, 2007 11:01 AM

Razib and Hugo,

Thanks for the corrections. Certainly Dutch culture had its highly religious (Calvinist) strains, which were possibly as bad or worse than the secular mainstream; the Afrikaners of S. Africa being a prime example. However, my point was basically a negative one, to state that secularization did not do much to remedy the crimes that Europeans committed. As in fact it didn't , as we see from the secular Dutch. Hugo, can you point me to a source making the argument about Dutch secularism being a factor in their involvement in the slave trade?

For a hard-line Catholic (I'm not Catholic btw), presumbaly it wouldn't make too much of a difference whether the Dutch were secular or Calvinist, in either case they were non-Catholics, and thus cut off from the grace of Christ and the moral guidance of the Church, so no wonder they embraced racism, slavery, and genocide. Didn't Cardinal Newman say something like 'Protestantism is just a halfway house on the road to atheism'.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | August 30, 2007 11:07 AM

Re: I was wondering if there were some actual theological debates around the time about the legitimacy of the Inquistion and similar institutions.

Sad to say (from a Christian POV) but the move toward tolerance came mostly from prgamatic folks, who may still have been religious, but whose main purpose in the this world was to create a better social order-- often enough, one based on monarchial power to the diminishment of the Church's secular power. Kings and their ministers realized that stirring up vast civil upheaval over religion made their countries less governable and gave their foreign foes a handle to exploit against them. And the horrific example of the Thirty Years War (and Cronwell's dictatorship in England) sickened a lot of people over the thought of religious violence. But the Inquisition was still a going concern in Spain and its territories when Napoleon sat his brother on the throne in Madrid (and promptly ended the Holy Office, not that Spaniards were grateful for it). Auto da fe's had become rare, because the Church had discovered it was more profitable to let people buy their way out of trouble instead. But occasionally the bonfires still burned. And even in the 19th century the Roman Catholic Church inveighed furiously against the "error" of religious tolernace. If you want to look for specifically religious advocates of tolernace you will have to seek them in the Quakers and the early Baptists.

Re: The conquest of South and Central America was done for largely religious motives

I disagree. It was done mainly for gold, with the priests and monks following after the conquistadors. And sometimes those priests and monks even protested loudly at the treatment accorded the natives, petititioning Madrid and Lisbon to put a stop to it. One such advocate for the natives actually convinced his betters-- but then suggested the disastrous alternative of using African slaves instead.

Re: Even France, though still a very Catholic country, was ruled over by what was in practice an increasingly secular monarchy

True, but the French dealt rather well with the natives under their rule, sending priests to preach to them and traders to trade with them but otherwise leaving them unmolested. Hence the fact most of the Indian tribes sided with France rather than Britain, and also the fact there's an awful lot of native genes in the Quebecois to this day.
And it's worth noting that when Britain took over Florida from Spain in 1763 not just the Spanish settlers but the remaining natives packed up and moved to Cuba so as not to fall under British rule.

Re: Think about the work that the Jesuits did in Paraguay, to form the Guarani Indians into a collectivist, literate, mini-utopia in the jungle

Yes, a very ineresting case. To his eternal discredit, Voltaire, who hated the Church no matter what, called for the Jesuit state's destruction. But one curious result of that experiment: the Guarani language was adopted by many non-natives as well, and to this day it is spoken by a majority of Paraguay's population, the only Amerindian language to be adopted by Europeans.

Re: And as for the Iraq war, the Catholic and even more the Orthodox churches, and as far as I know the mainline Protestant ones, were hostile to the invasion.

I have personally heard two Orthodox hierarchs denounce the Iraq War. One (the Bulgarian metroplitan) did so in veiled terms, probably force of habit due to his Bulgarian roots. But Archbishop Philip (the Antiochian metropolitan) did so in no uncertain terms at our church last fall. Given the allergy most Orthodox clergy have to engaging in open politics in this country this was about as startling as if he had started dancing the can-can before the altar.

Re: Question: who started the African slave trade?

If you mean the slave trade with the New World, it was The Portguese, since they had the first colonies in Africa (and check out the racial character of Brazil today, where slavery endured even longer than it did here). Later, Spain, France, the Netherlands, Britain and Denmark all joined in enthusiastically. Of course, the Arab Caliphate had really started mining Africa for slaves centuries before, when the flow of slaves from northern Europe was cut off by the christianization of Russia.

Re: Does anyone know anything about the status of slavery under the Byzantine Empire

Slavery lasted a while in Byzantium, but declined there too by 1000 AD. Again, the Christianization of the Slavic peoples (the main victims of the trade in the period 600-1000) pretty much cut off the flow of slaves to and through Byzantium.

Re: Feudal systems in Europe had homegrown slaves called serfs

Unh-unh. Slaves and serfs had very different legal status. Serfs could not be sold and had legal rights (albeit not as many as their lords) There was still a relict slavery in Europe in the Middle Ages, but it was mainly used as a punishment for petty criminals who would not reform but who were not heinous enough to be executed.

Re: Technically, of course, St. Thomas Aquinas at the height of the middle ages did not accept forced conversion

Forced conversion was never acceptable in formal Christian thought, since Christ had to be freely chosen for any conversion to be effective.

Posted by JonF | August 31, 2007 8:25 PM

paperer orangeade trispermous ophionid subparallel ectotrophi distinct blastozooid
http://www.knights-of-rizal.com/ >Knights of Rizal
http://www.farel.net

Posted by Victoria Aguilar |

Politically Incorrect Debate of the Day

Comments (60)