Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Gingrich Says New Religious Wars Are A Good Idea
Republican presidential flirt* and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich bravely decried the rising tide of "radical secularism" during his commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University this weekend. Gingrich then went on to claim:
"Basic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard.... It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers."
Discrmination against religious believers in the United States? Give me a break! "Discrimination" in country in which a Newsweek poll on March 31st found that 91 percent of Americans say they believe in the Big Guy in the Sky and 82 percent say that they are Christians? The good news is that only 26 percent think that an atheist can't be a moral person.
In the West Christians stopped being discriminated against about the time that Theodosius made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire in 392 AD. Of course Christians enjoyed discriminating against one another and what followed was centuries of bloodletting as practitioners of different varieties of Christianity busily slaughtered heretics. It was the advent of the odd notion of separating the state from religion that eventually ended religious wars within and between Western countries. It is the principle of separation of church and state that has protected civil peace for more than two centuries in the U.S. and it is one of the pillars of the secularism denounced by Gingrich.
*Flirt because you can't be a "hopeful" until you declare that you're actually running.
The People\'s Front of Christi|5.21.07 @ 10:29AM|#
Of course Christians enjoyed discriminating against one
another and what followed was centuries of bloodletting as
practitioners of different varieties of Christianity busily
slaughtered heretics.
The Christian People's Front got what they deserved!
dhex|5.21.07 @ 10:30AM|#
oh dear this is going to be one of those threads.
so a derail question: how much cash do you think liberty ponied up
to get newt as their commencement-er?
VM|5.21.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Newt defends a thought
A thousand posts will follow
Haiku or batin?
Ten thousand a talk
Bet he's got some great stories
Good on Larry King.
Guy Montag|5.21.07 @ 10:34AM|#
"Discrimination" in country in which a Newsweek poll on
March 31st found that 91 percent of Americans say they believe in
the Big Guy in the Sky and 82 percent say that they are
Christians?
With a court system run by the manger-burning wing of the ACLU.
|5.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#
"With a court system run by the manger-burning wing of the
ACLU."
Over 3/4 of sitting federal judges were appointed by Reagan, Bush,
and Bush.
z|5.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#
1st Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
1st Amendment to US Constitution: Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.
A direct conflict, makes me wonder if these people even read either
the bible OR the constitution.
Untermensch|5.21.07 @ 10:39AM|#
As a religious person, I agree entirely with Ron's assessment of
the situation. Akira's vitriol and wishes aside, Christians are
not discriminated against in the United States, and
separation of church and state is a good idea, if only because
theocracies seem to be very bad at crafting policy for
this world. To the extent that Christians have lost
privileges in the U.S., it is not a matter of becoming second-class
citizens, but rather of the whole notion of first- and second-class
citizenship being dismantled.
The other reason for the insistence on being discriminated against
has deep roots in Christian social theology (and before that, in
Jewish concepts that come from around the time of Babylon
Captivity) that see the chosen people as a suffering people. If you
aren't oppressed, you aren't legitimately God's people, so if you
aren't being oppressed, you have to manufacture the oppression that
legitimizes your existence.
So here is from one religious person all in favor of secular
government and making everyone, Christian, atheist, Wiccan, etc.
equal in the eyes of the law. Let government be conducted based on
the validity of ideas, not on securing a group's place as on top of
the pile based on historical privilege.
Untermensch|5.21.07 @ 10:43AM|#
A direct conflict, makes me wonder if these people even read either the bible OR the constitution.
How is it a conflict? I missed the direct part. Saying
that people should have no other God by YHWH doesn't say anything
about the political establishment of religion. If someone is really
interested in putting no God before YHWH, that person should be
very leery of the temptation to political power and the
establishment of religion, which is likely to replace religion with
politics in a hurry.
dhex|5.21.07 @ 10:45AM|#
i like guy mont-blog
for he keeps me laughing hard
oops i peed a bit
manger burning man
sec'larists hold baby jesus
let me get some gas
|5.21.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Christianists, like Islamists, believe that using the government
to further the dominance of their religious group is their right.
Denying them the power to imprison homosexuals or require
schoolchildren to engage in Christian prayer, for example, are just
as much a denial of their rights as forbidding them from praying.
This is the sense in which Christians are discriminated in
America.
Please note my terminology - Christianist/Islamist vs.
Christian/Muslim. The former are political identities, the latter
are religious identities. I make this distinction, even though the
aherents to those political ideologies don't.
steveintheknow|5.21.07 @ 10:47AM|#
This is good stuff.
I love hearing the "secularism is tyranny" line from someone who's
on, what, his 5th marriage by now?
|5.21.07 @ 10:56AM|#
91 percent of Americans say they believe in the Big Guy in
the Sky and 82 percent say that they are Christians
As many REAL Christians would tell you, most of "those people"
aren't really Christians. They may say they are,
but not all of them are.
|5.21.07 @ 11:01AM|#
today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against
religious believers.
So true, our anti-theist bias can't be avoided. Let's list all the
ways the devout are oppressed in today's America.
1) All candidates for political office must publicly declare their
atheism or have no chance of being elected.
VM|5.21.07 @ 11:02AM|#
haiku is batin
and quite religious as well
yell "oh god!" at end
oh god oh god done
that one was not full haiku
secular tyrant!
what a guy is fun
and so is the burning man
is guy burning man?
Kneel before great ZOD
kneeling - trick of Democrats
Monica kneepads?
|5.21.07 @ 11:03AM|#
So given joe's "ist" distinction...
Don't we need to be sure to include the "secularists" in the
mix.
|5.21.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Secularists = those that "believe that using the government to
further the dominance of their" beliefs is their right.
By the way, as much as I hate the prick, I don't see Gingrich
calling for a theocracy in the article...maybe there was a point in
the speech that I missed.
|5.21.07 @ 11:06AM|#
It was the advent of the odd notion of separating the state from religion that eventually ended religious wars within and between Western countries.
As a nonreligious person, I gotta disagree with Mr. Bailey on this
one. While it did appeal to my manger-burning (thanks for this one,
Guy Montag!) instincts, it doesn't jive with my take on
history.
It is difficult to find a religious war where religion was anything
more than a tool for justifying the political goals of nobles. In
my opinion, the separation of church and state followed the loss of
value of the clergy to the nobles for wielding power, rather than
being a cause of the waning power of the clergy. Even the Crusades
were a political attempt by the the Vatican to reassert their
control over the Catholic nobility.
|5.21.07 @ 11:06AM|#
2) Believers are forced to trade in currency with the words "There is no God" inscribed on it.
|5.21.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Reinmoose,
As many REAL Christians would tell you, most of "those people" aren't really Christians.
...but they are far from being secularists, by any measure.
|5.21.07 @ 11:14AM|#
NM,
I think we're running into a semantic problem there - the word
"secularist" is used to define two distinct set of beliefs.
There are those secularists who do wish to use the government to
advance an anti-religious ideology. For example, those Turks and
Frenchmen who would ban the wearing of headscarves.
But is also describes the ideology of restricting the government
from being involved in religious disputes at all. For example, the
First Amendment in 1789 imposed a secular orientation on the
federal government - meaning, it was to avoid all engagement as the
state governments established official religions!
|5.21.07 @ 11:15AM|#
3) Believers are surrounded by enormous temples to atheism with tall spires topped by atheist symbology and with signs next to the road telling them how doomed the are for being theists.
|5.21.07 @ 11:18AM|#
My favorite church sign, by the way:
There is no way but Yahweh!
I couldn't get offended at something that funny. I can't help but
appreciate people who have a sense of humor about their
religion.
|5.21.07 @ 11:22AM|#
I shouldn't have let my ACLU membership lapse. I had no idea
they had a manger-burning wing. That fucking rules, Guy! Thanks for
the tip.
You're really special, Guy; "short-bus" special that is.
Here it is in haiku form:
Manger burners are
neato. Thanks Guy. Rock on, you
shortbus knobjockey.
|5.21.07 @ 11:29AM|#
4) Members of the clergy are forbidden from serving in the armed forces, and may not attend to military personnel.
|5.21.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Speaking of favorite church signs:
Come to worship on Sunday! It'll shock yo mama!
|5.21.07 @ 11:30AM|#
My favorite church sign: "God wants spiritual fruit, not
religious nuts."
And wasn't Christ Himself the first promoter of separation between
Church and state, with His "render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's?"
J Alfred Prufrock|5.21.07 @ 11:38AM|#
""Put not your faith in princes.""
No! I am not Prince Hamlet
Nor was meant to be...
|5.21.07 @ 11:45AM|#
5) Each session of Congress begins with a Secular Statement, reminding the representatives of the importance to legislate wisely and well, since no divine justice will be forthcoming to correct their errors.
|5.21.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Speaking of religion, check out this handy little website for confessing your sins...
GILMORE|5.21.07 @ 11:50AM|#
I have no indignity to spout
we're getting a little better with these god snarks
Yo mike, whats news
Robert|5.21.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Unfortunately once the state assumes a certain size there is no
way to get both fully free exercise and full disestablishment at
the same time, as I wrote at
http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/politic/religious.html . Suppose
you have a community that's 95% Christian, and their state's
constitution requires them to establish a tax-supported school. Can
you say for sure that it's any less of a violation of their liberty
for their school to have to be secular than for it to be religious?
Can you blame the 95% for trying to sneak their religion in to the
school as much as they can get away with?
Similarly if state schools (in France or wherever) have a dress
code, why shouldn't it ban the wearing of head scarves or yamukas,
when it would appear that allowing such items to be worn would be a
state endorsement of that religion -- just as allowing a Pepsi logo
would be an endorsement of Pepsi? When the child is in the school,
does not that child's behavior & dress reflect the school's
requirements?
If you think these questions are answered easily, that's only
because of familiarity with what you're used to.
dhex|5.21.07 @ 11:50AM|#
"It is difficult to find a religious war where religion was
anything more than a tool for justifying the political goals of
nobles."
cathars?
up until a certain point the popes (especially during the two popes
period) were both secular and religious leaders. but i don't think
this means you can just throw out the explicitly religious
justifications for certain actions.
dhex|5.21.07 @ 11:51AM|#
gilmore: almost done with semester, other than that the job hunt will ramp up this summer...with a vengeance!
|5.21.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Rimfax,
I wasn't being serious, but merely channeling the debating
techniques of my mother to make a case against that statistic, so
that Christians can continue to feel oppressed.
My favorite Church sign (billboard) in Central, PA
CH__CH
What's Missing?
U R!
(it was located on the highway near an Adult World store)
|5.21.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Ron Paul on religion
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
"As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it's hard not to notice
that Christmas in America simply doesn't feel the same anymore.
Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas,
and those who don't celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect
our nation's Christmas traditions, a certain shared public
sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a
wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost
in the ongoing war against religion."
|5.21.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Be sure to read the whole thing for the money quotes...
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no
basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our
Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views
were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the
drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,
both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal
government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the
First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an
official state church like the Church of England, not to drive
religion out of public life."
|5.21.07 @ 12:03PM|#
6) Religious practice is so widely disparaged and held in low
regard, that believers are often afraid to express their beliefs,
even to friends and family. The fear reprisals from employers keeps
them from displaying symbols of their faith in the workplace.
Meanwhile, various groups of atheists and humanists, fearlessly go
door to door in efforts to educate people and save them from the
perils of religion.
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 12:04PM|#
"Discrimination" in country in which a Newsweek poll on March 31st found that 91 percent of Americans say they believe in the Big Guy in the Sky and 82 percent say that they are Christians?
Ron, you don't know much about evangelical Christianity. :-) That
82 % includes papists, Mormons, liberals, and others not fit to be
called Christian. According to evangelical Christians, to be a
Christian you have to believe certain things and be "born again."
By that definition, only about a quarter of Americans are
Christian. Most Catholics, almost all mainline Protestants,
Orthodox, Mormons, liberal Quakers, that sort of riff-raff, aren't
truly Christian; they don't properly believe. Hell, you're
probably oppressing Real ChristiansTM by simply implying that they
should be lumped in with those splitters!
dhex|5.21.07 @ 12:05PM|#
"mike: BBQ this weekend? Bring Christians! And beer."
i'll bring some trappist ale and get both in one shot! (plus it's
very hard fitting monks into a bottle and bringing it on the
subway)
|5.21.07 @ 12:06PM|#
He's a thouroughly dangerous man.
Newt's just positioning himself to pick up the pieces from Rudy's
pro choice stance and Mitt's LDS ties. The repugnicans have to have
a pious candidate and newt can beat shrillary.
Religion has nothin to do with it.
This is politickin folks. Pure and simple.
|5.21.07 @ 12:09PM|#
"He's a thouroughly dangerous man.
Newt's just positioning himself to pick up the pieces from Rudy's
pro choice stance and Mitt's LDS ties. The repugnicans have to have
a pious candidate and newt can beat shrillary.
Religion has nothin to do with it.
This is politickin folks. Pure and simple."
Good pick-up.
;)
Edward|5.21.07 @ 12:11PM|#
"It is the principle of separation of church and state that has
protected civil peace for more than two centuries in the U.S. and
it is one of the pillars of the secularism denounced by
Gingrich."
Libertarian pin-up boy Ron Paul is no fan of secularism either.
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 12:12PM|#
"It is difficult to find a religious war where religion was anything more than a tool for justifying the political goals of nobles."
cathars?
Even then, religion was more the excuse than the reason. The
northern French have fought a centuries-long war of extinction
against the Occitan culture and language. The Albigensian Crusade
was just one of the first volleys in that war, which has now been
almost completely won.
|5.21.07 @ 12:14PM|#
Robert,
"Can you say for sure that it's any less of a violation of their
liberty for their school to have to be secular than for it to be
religious?" Um, yes? The DPW guys should pour the concrete and make
a nice, flat sidewalk. They shouldn't draw little crucifixes in it.
That's because a sidewalk is there for people to walk on, not to
help bring people to Jesus. In Math class, the teachers should talk
about math. Not Moses.
|5.21.07 @ 12:14PM|#
More Ron Paul on religion and government
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html
"I'm happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of
God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored
him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact,
most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds
with Catholic teachings."
...
"This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion -
it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted
religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our
society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it.
But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the
legacy left by Pope John Paul II."
dhex|5.21.07 @ 12:16PM|#
gry: the papal fixation on the cathars spanned three or four popes. i don't know how many of them were french, however.
|5.21.07 @ 12:51PM|#
It was the advent of the odd notion of separating the state
from religion that eventually ended religious wars within and
between Western countries.
I, too, wish to take issue with this statement.
What put a brake on Western religious wars and persecutions was
increasing acceptance of a tolerant attitude, not separation of
church and state (which came later, if at all). England, for
example, still has a state religion, and most Catholic legal
disabilities weren't removed there until the mid-19th century. But
religious wars in England ended some 200 years earlier.
|5.21.07 @ 12:53PM|#
People like Newt, when they are not simply pandering (which he surely is, as a PhD futurist I doubt seriously Newt is such a orthodox, pious fellow), mean this: Othodox Christianity (as understood by conservative sects) used to be the de facto ideology underlying everything in this land, and now that is no longer the case, and we don't like it. We used to have our say exclusively in the schools (school prayer), in the government (In God We Trust, God Save this Court), in movies (Ben Hur, King of Kings, Ten Commandments), in the military, in colleges (religious colleges which up until 1900 dominated) etc., but now we no longer have exclusive, dominant say and we don't like it. We feel discriminated from being able to ram our ideas, no matter how silly, down people's throats brooking no questioning. Now we can't, and waaah, poor us.
|5.21.07 @ 12:57PM|#
"England, for example, still has a state religion, and most
Catholic legal disabilities weren't removed there until the
mid-19th century. But religious wars in England ended some 200
years earlier."
I see your point JP, I think they Brits also just got war-weary
(not quite the same as tolerant, as your point about religious
legal discrimnation remaining long past the wars bears out) but
maybe the wars ended earlier because the Catholics got whooped and
it was essentially all over. The Puritans and like minded folks
were just too strong and too fanatical a force post- Cromwell for
any Catholic faction to be strong enough to take things to
blows.
|5.21.07 @ 1:10PM|#
maybe the wars ended earlier because the Catholics got
whooped and it was essentially all over.
Ken -- If that were the whole story, then the winners would have
gone back to persecuting Catholics Queen-Elizabeth style. But
instead the winners adopted a live-and-let-live attitude -- which
continued even though England fought wars against Catholic France
in the 18th century.
MikeT|5.21.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Funny how only 11% of Americans actually believe in all of the core teachings that make up what it means to be a Christian of any denomination...
|5.21.07 @ 1:17PM|#
"But religious wars in England ended some 200 years
earlier."
Doesn't Northern Ireland count for nothing?
|5.21.07 @ 1:28PM|#
1. Religious wars ended in Europe when the monarchs agreed to
let each other impose their own religions on their own subjects,
rather than fighting over which One True Religion should be imposed
on those subjects. The separation of church and state came
centuries later.
2. Northern Ireland was a war between nations seeking control of
territory. The religious distinction was just an overlay. In fact,
the English were involved in colonialist assaults on Ireland before
Henry VIII split from Rome.
David (no not that one)|5.21.07 @ 1:30PM|#
I had forgotten all of that anti-separation of church and state
stuff that Ron Paul espouses. Really saddens me but reaffirms my
inclination to not vote. No matter how much you love about any
candidate, there will always be something that you simply can't
stomach.
His religious stances certainly will make him more popular with the
LewRockwell crowd though.
|5.21.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Discrmination against religious believers in the United
States? Give me a break!
Public Schools.
Why should the Christian Smith family send little Jimmy to be
taught about evolution and the the proper use of condoms?
The atheist Black family doesn't have to send Sally to learn about
creationism and how not to have sex.
|5.21.07 @ 1:56PM|#
A large part of what many Christians are talking about when they
talk about discrimination has to do with public schools. Get rid of
the public schools and much of that discrimination/discrimination
talk goes away.
For any small tent libertarians out there, we can make common cause
with Falwell types on the private education issue. For any small
tent Christians out there, Christianity would thrive in a
libertarian environment.
...I don't know how small tent people manage to live with
themselves. My guess is that they couldn't make it without the rest
of us.
|5.21.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Funny how only 11% of Americans actually believe in all of
the core teachings that make up what it means to be a Christian of
any denomination...
Funny thing about religious freedom...people get to choose
individually what it means to worship and be a Christian (or
whatever)....ie you don't get to decide for them and neither does
code monkey.
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 2:00PM|#
grylliade,
I believe you stole my post :)
Yeah, I meant to quote what you'd said earlier. Credit where
credit's due. :-D
gry: the papal fixation on the cathars spanned three or four popes. i don't know how many of them were french, however.
Certainly, the popes had their own obsessions. But I don't think
that the French kings would have acted without it being in their
own interests. The popes could have preached and preached, but in
the end it came down to cultural differences, of which the
religious differences were only the most visible.
Funny how only 11% of Americans actually believe in all of the core teachings that make up what it means to be a Christian of any denomination...
Funny how you define the 11 % to be those who believe in the Bible
as the source of authority, then link to the Nicene Creed - which
has no mention of Biblical authority - as the standard of Christian
belief. But then, I'm not a Christian by your definition, so I have
no right to define what a Christian is or isn't.
This is what I'm talking about: I'm a Christian, yet I don't
believe in the authority of the Bible. Neither do Catholics or
Orthodox, at least not in the way evangelical Christians do. You
say in your linked article that Revelation was the last book
written by an apostle (which it wasn't), and that was what Christ
meant by apostolic authority (which isn't supported well by your
linked verse). Again, Catholics would disagree with you, as would
Anglicans and Orthodox. To us, authority in the church was also
passed down through apostolic succession. And even then, I think
that's only authority in the church. Individuals still
have an obligation to follow their conscience, whatever the church
might say. In the end, you're going to have to stand before God
alone, and "the Church said so" isn't going to be an excuse.
If you narrowly define Christianity to be "what I and people I like
believe," then you can reach absurdly low numbers for adherents in
America. I'd define Christians as those who can say the Nicene
Creed without reservations, which would include most Christians in
America, if they sat down and thought about what they really
believed. But then you wouldn't be able to have your persecuted
mentality.
|5.21.07 @ 2:06PM|#
"This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate
religion - it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has
co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of
our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows
it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the
legacy left by Pope John Paul II."
Am I supposed to see something wrong with that?
dhex|5.21.07 @ 2:08PM|#
gry: no doubt the northern french nobility enjoyed being able to
(eventually) claim those lands, but it's not like the papacy just
showed up and pointed.
i think my main point is that denying that religious wars are, at
their core, deeply religious in nature is as odd as denying that
religious good works are simply community-based goodwill offerings
that have nothing to do with religion.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 2:22PM|#
grylliade,
The RCC was a driving force behind the persecution of the
Albigensians; indeed, because it was so ineffectual by more
"benign" means it opted to push for and condone far more harsh
efforts. While secular authorities were important in the end it is
hard to imagine the response which the Albigensians eventually
received without the leadership of the RCC in the matter.
|5.21.07 @ 2:23PM|#
"This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate
religion - it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has
co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of
our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows
it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the
legacy left by Pope John Paul II."
In Libertopia, won't religion have more of an impact on our daily
lives than government?
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 2:25PM|#
dhex,
There was a time when historians discounted religion as an
important force in such conflicts and that time has largely passed.
Part of the confusion arises I think from modern notions of
religious faith and the inability to apprehend that religious wars
were as much about defending the communal notions of religion as
much as specific doctrines.
|5.21.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Ken,
"Am I supposed to see something wrong with that?"
You are supposed to interpret it in light of your own beliefs. I
was not attempting to put any valuation on Paul's statements.
I just found it interesting that Gingrich was getting criticized
for, essentially, taking Ron Paul's position in the context of all
the Ron Paul worshipping posts lately.
Note that Ron Paul uses the "war against religion" (nay even the
"war on christmas") meme to frame the discussion of state and
religion.
|5.21.07 @ 2:38PM|#
"Doesn't Northern Ireland count for nothing?
Colonial war."
Sure. But see Grotius' statement above. It ain't just coinkidink
that one side was protestant and the other catholic. The religious
overlay was part of the motivation for wanting to stay separate or
not.
|5.21.07 @ 2:40PM|#
"Doesn't Northern Ireland count for nothing?
Colonial war."
Just like Palestinian/Israeli conflict?
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 2:43PM|#
Neu Mejican,
It is impossible to understand post-Elizabeth I Ireland without
thinking about communal conflict over religion and all that entails
re: differences of culture, etc.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I mean sure, one can look to Henry II's invited invasion, etc., but without religious difference Irish history would be quite different. For example, consider what would have happened if the Cromwellian regimes efforts to convert the Irish population as a whole had succeeded?
|5.21.07 @ 2:53PM|#
"If you narrowly define Christianity to be "what I and people I
like believe," then you can reach absurdly low numbers for
adherents in America. I'd define Christians as those who can say
the Nicene Creed without reservations, which would include most
Christians in America, if they sat down and thought about what they
really believed. But then you wouldn't be able to have your
persecuted mentality."
When you say that the Nicene Creed is the defining thing that makes
you a Christian, you're engaging in that narrowing thing you decry.
What makes anyone a Christian is believing in Christ and trying to
follow his teachings, not saying you agree with what a
quasi-statist committee cobbled up as a compromise view of what
Christianity should consist of. Actions, not words, are the
substance of Christianity.
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 2:54PM|#
i think my main point is that denying that religious wars are, at their core, deeply religious in nature is as odd as denying that religious good works are simply community-based goodwill offerings that have nothing to do with religion.
I'd say that religious wars aren't religious in nature,
but rather that religion can exacerbate already existing cultural
differences. Northern France would have invaded and conquered
southern France with or without the Cathar heresy. Probably the
carnage would have been less had there not been a religious motive.
And had the Cathar heresy spread in northern France rather than
southern, the response wouldn't have been a crusade, but rather a
gentler means of dealing with it. Maybe something like England's
laws against Catholics and Puritans, after some fighting with a
relatively low body count.
And I'd say the same for religious good works. They'd happen in the
absence of religion, but they wouldn't be as widespread, and the
zeal with which they were carried out wouldn't be as great.
|5.21.07 @ 2:57PM|#
In Libertopia, won't religion have more of an impact on our
daily lives than government?
Only if you're religious.
|5.21.07 @ 2:58PM|#
joe,
"The Pope backed Cromwell's side against the Irish, NM."
There has been a lot of history since then.
Even what many would call "war." And most of that is more recent
than 200 years ago. To call the more recent conflict colonial
without recognizing the religious motivation behind the conflict is
daft.
|5.21.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Gingrich was pandering to his audience. Keep in mind that he was
speaking at Liberty University, the site whence Satan called Jerry
Falwell home.
To many fundamentalists, fancying themselves as being reviled or
"persecuted" by others is evidence of their virtue and, hence, part
of the Falwellian schtick, as in, "Blessed are ye, when men shall
revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad:
for great is your reward in heaven . . ."
This is one of the few congruities between what Falwell talked
about and what Jesus said. Most of Jesus' teachings, such as loving
one's neighbors, feeding the hungry, attending to the sick and
infirm, and condemning the Pharisees of His day (whom Falwell
seemed to regard as role models), Falwell avoided like the
plague.
Of course, Jesus spoke in the context of King Herod having ordered
the slaughter of infants and in anticipation of the mortal dangers
His disciples would face; Falwell, Gingrich and their ilk merely
react peevishly to snide remarks and snarky putdowns.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 3:06PM|#
grylliade,
I'd say that religious wars aren't religious in nature, but
rather that religion can exacerbate already existing cultural
differences.
That's just silly. You can't seperate out religion from culture,
particularly in areas where religion is an intimate part of a
person's and community's daily (indeed, hourly) life.
Northern France would have invaded and conquered southern
France with or without the Cathar heresy.
Then why did it only do so when the RCC gave northern French nobles
the appropriate inducement to do so?
...but rather a gentler means of dealing with it.
Or alternatively (and far more likely) a Crusade calling in
elements from outside of "France" would have been called in. The
statements of the RCC at the time illustrate that the RCC saw the
Albigensians as a mortal threat and the RCC had by the early 13th
century lost its patience with developments in southern France.
Untermensch|5.21.07 @ 3:07PM|#
To call the more recent conflict colonial without recognizing the religious motivation behind the conflict is daft.
It's similarly reductive to see religion as the motive (I
don't know if that's what you mean though). I friend of mine who
lived in the heart of the troubles as a researcher put it this way.
He said there's the journalistic view that reduces it to
Protestants and Catholics without realizing the history of
disenfranchisement between the Plantationists and the native
population that happened to fall along religious lines. Then there
is his view which marveled at how low the body count during the
Troubles actually was, something he attributes to those on both
side taking the commandment "thou shalt not kill" seriously, even
when they broke it. Not to count those who chose not to kill
because they took their religion seriously.
In other words, religion is one factor (and not one to ignore!),
but it is not uniform in its outcome and it is not the only root of
the conflict. It is symbolic of the many factors and the history
since the time of the Plantation that were all involved in the
Troubles.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 3:11PM|#
The religious wars were religious in nature. Religion - as understand as a shared community experience - was the primary issue contested between the groups involved. A ton of primary evidence exists to bolster this notion. Indeed, as yourself why Catholic Parisians would pick out Protestant Parisians and slaughter them with great violence (e.g., ripping a fetus from a woman's womb) if the threat to community religious solidarity wasn't at the heart of their concerns?
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Untermensch,
The problem is that we moderns often tend to think of religion as
this individualized, existentialist, intellectual concern. But when
religion is viewed as a revealed source of absolute authority which
communities simply adhere to, well one sees how challenges to such
can elicit violence.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 3:14PM|#
BTW, I think that the individuation of religious belief is generally a good thing. It difuses group power and hegemony.
|5.21.07 @ 3:16PM|#
NM,
"There has been a lot of history since then."
Yes, there has. For example, the Catholic bishops in Ireland
excommuncated the Fenians.
And, the United Irishmen consisted of Catholics and Protestants who
joined together to resist the British.
And, for the last 30 years of the conflict, the IRA was run by
Marxist atheists.
People, particularly the Unionists, often used religion to whip up
the mob, but that doesn't change the essential nature of the
conflict, which was Irish vs. English.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Of course one could argue that under the right conditions humans are simply violent. Nevertheless religion can still prompt that tendency; it can help make up (or exclusively up) those conditions.
Untermensch|5.21.07 @ 3:24PM|#
But when religion is viewed as a revealed source of absolute authority which communities simply adhere to…
When and where was this period of simple adherence true? It's just
as much a construct as the "individualized, existentialist,
intellectual concern" you refer to. When we look at history and
move beyond the official doctrines, we find a variety, never a
unity. Cotton Mather reviled the "horse-shed Christians" who did
not practice what they advocated in services, and Lucretius
advocated atheism in classical Rome. Early visions of Christianity
battled each other for centuries officially, and their teachings
survived for centuries within the main church.
Are there religious zealots? Yes, but they aren't everyone in a
community and never were. The idea of the mindless, religious horde
flooding up out of the hollers with blank stares bearing snakes in
their hands is just as silly as assuming that religion has no
communal nature. (No, I'm not quoting you, but it's not hard to get
this image from the notion of people blindly following
religion.)
Regarding just about anything one can say about religion, the
answer is both yes and no.
Were the Troubles about religion? Of course they were. Were they
only about religion? Of course not. Was religion's
influence in the conflict good or bad? How about both: it drove
some to kill and it kept others from killing... I've read
ethnographic accounts of people involved in the Troubles: they were
not mindless automatons killing because of religion; many
of them (on both sides) were deeply conflicted because they
realized that their religion required them to do something other
than what they were doing, but they saw no way to bring that ideal
into line with their lived realities. I doubt any conflict in
history that used religion as the causus belli was without such
conflict and nuance.
dhex|5.21.07 @ 3:30PM|#
"They'd happen in the absence of religion, but they wouldn't be
as widespread, and the zeal with which they were carried out
wouldn't be as great."
well, i picked the cathars as my example because it was such a
lengthy conflict (with a lot of buildup and history before the
actual violence) and because it was explicitly religious in nature.
it wasn't simply a land grab. it was far more akin to something i'd
call "magico-religious warfare" - being able to assemble a huge
amount of crusaders to do tremendous violence to a relatively small
and (militarily/economically speaking) nonthreatening population is
a function that is somewhat unique to metaphysical belief
systems.
to pick an example that all the conservatarians will jerk off over
for hours, no doubt, the first contact between muslims and
buddhists in northern india - and the insane slaughter that
resulted - is telling. so is the treatment of shivalingam after
hindu temples had been taken over in india: specifically, the
stones were crushed and turned into a walkway so that the feet of
believers could forever trod upon their blasphemous idols.
that's symbolic warfare.
Mike Laursen|5.21.07 @ 3:30PM|#
I had forgotten all of that anti-separation of church and
state stuff that Ron Paul espouses. Really saddens me but reaffirms
my inclination to not vote.
Yup. Which is one of the reasons why, though I like a lot of things
about Ron Paul, I'm not running down to the post office to register
as a Republican so I can vote for him in the primary.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Untermensch,
When and where was this period of simple adherence
true?
I'd say that despite its diversity that it was largely true in
Catholic and Protestants communities in 16th century France.
It's just as much a construct as the "individualized,
existentialist, intellectual concern" you refer to.
Well, crap man, any discussion of the past is based on constructs.
It matters whether they are accurate (or reasonably accurate) or
not.
When we look at history and move beyond the official doctrines,
we find a variety, never a unity.
Well, apparently French Catholics (from many walks of life) were
united enough to carry out kingdom-wide assaults on French
Protestants on a number of occassions.
...but it's not hard to get this image from the notion of
people blindly following religion.)
It is not that they are blindly following; indeed, they were quite
consciously involved in the decisions. Their decisions were based
on a mental world quite different from our own (at least in some
ways).
Were they only about religion?
I never claimed that they were. Still, can one imagine the
"troubles" being as they are without two religious communities and
their seperate cultures and histories (or the historical grievances
and fears that they choose to remember and mythologize) inhabiting
the same island?
|5.21.07 @ 3:33PM|#
You aren't serious are you? I mean your internet site.. it's
a spoof right? I am just really confused, we had to read your "Hell
House" article in our college Bible class, and our teacher actually
thought you were for real! What a joke! Anyway, please just tell me
the site is a joke so I can let my teacher know. Thanks!
-rebekah morgan
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/mail/0407.html
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/hellhouse/thehouse.html
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 3:39PM|#
dhex,
The shitty thing of course is that the Catholic Church's crushing
of the Albigensians busted up one of the most prosperous,
culturally-rich regions of Europe.
grylliade|5.21.07 @ 4:51PM|#
That's just silly. You can't seperate out religion from culture, particularly in areas where religion is an intimate part of a person's and community's daily (indeed, hourly) life.
I think you made my point quite nicely. :-) Religion is, indeed,
part of culture. It is the cultural differences that are primary,
not the religious; that's the point I'm trying to make.
Then why did it only do so when the RCC gave northern French nobles the appropriate inducement to do so?
I'd say more an excuse to do so. If you invade a
neighboring country because you want their land, other countries
will be somewhat leery of you in the future. If, instead, you
invade because the pope gave you permission . . . Had the pope,
instead of promising the land to the French nobles, claimed any
land of executed heretics for the church, I guarantee you
the crusade would never have happened.
And the northern French persecution of Occitan didn't end there. It
continued over the next few centuries, and the French Revolution
just made it worse. It was, and is, fairly naked cultural
imperialism on the part of the northern French. Maybe it started
with the Albigensian Crusade, but it sure as hell didn't end there,
and the non-religious motives have done more to eliminate Occitan
culture than the crusade ever did.
Or alternatively (and far more likely) a Crusade calling in elements from outside of "France" would have been called in.
Yes, but would anyone have responded? France at the time was one of
the most powerful countries in Europe; there would have been little
to gain from attacking France, and much to lose. It's possible that
the papacy would simply have come to terms with a form of
Catharism, given a politically and militarily strong
opposition.
The statements of the RCC at the time illustrate that the RCC saw the Albigensians as a mortal threat and the RCC had by the early 13th century lost its patience with developments in southern France.
The pope had everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by declaring
a crusade against an impotent heresy. Had the Protestants in later
times been more willing to compromise, I'm sure that room would
have been found for them inside Catholicism, but there were strong
cultural motives there, maybe stronger than any since the Schism of
1054 (which is why that Protestantism persisted when so many other
heresies died out). The Cathars were a rich, politically disunited,
militarily weak group. Had any of those things not been true, I
think the crusade would never have even been called.
The shitty thing of course is that the Catholic Church's crushing of the Albigensians busted up one of the most prosperous, culturally-rich regions of Europe.
Occitan probably would have recovered, had the French not spent the
next five centuries committing cultural genocide against the
Occitans.
|5.21.07 @ 4:58PM|#
This history lesson's fascinating, but when it's all said and done are we still for the First Amendment or against it?
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 5:53PM|#
grylliade,
I think you made my point quite nicely. :-) Religion is,
indeed, part of culture. It is the cultural differences that are
primary, not the religious; that's the point I'm trying to
make.
This sounds like a very artificial distinction at best and it makes
very little sense. Since religion is part of a culture then its
nature as part of that culture can explain a lot of the reasons why
people commit violence.
I'd say more an excuse to do so.,/i>
You can say that all you wish, but the primary sources disagree
with you. Perhaps you should consult them. It is clear that
religious zeal informed a significant part of the desire of the
secular and religious desire to destroy the Albigensians.
because the pope gave you permission . . . Had the pope, instead of
promising the land to the French nobles, claimed any land of
executed heretics for the church, I guarantee you the crusade would
never have happened.
Actually part of the land did go to the Church as I recall.
And the northern French persecution of Occitan didn't end
there.
Yes and no. Occitania contained some of the few regions which
continued to be exempt from various kingdom wide taxes and tolls up
to the rationalization of taxation, etc. during the French
Revolution.
Furthermore when you write the "Northern French" pray reveal, why
was such violence perpetrated against the Albigensian areas of
Occitania and not against other areas absorbed by France during its
rise into a fairly unified kingdom?
...and the French Revolution just made it worse.
I don't think that Occitania suffered any worse during the French
Revolution than other areas of France.
It was, and is, fairly naked cultural imperialism on the part of
the northern French.
Perhaps, but making the region's population orthodox Catholics was
a very important aspect of kingdom's efforts there. Indeed, that
sort of effort was widespread in Europe following the various
post-millenium "reforms" (e.g., a celibate priesthood, a more
uniform worship service, etc.). Enforcement of Orthodoxy was
Europe-wide by the time the Albigensian Crusade had gotten into
full swing. In other words, the crusade was a more extreme version
of the Church's efforts (along with secular authorities) to create
a more uniform religion.
Maybe it started with the Albigensian Crusade, but it sure as hell
didn't end there, and the non-religious motives have done more to
eliminate Occitan culture than the crusade ever did.
Perhaps, but what has this to do with the Albigensian Crusade
itself?
France at the time was one of the most powerful countries in
Europe...
Since we're talking about alternative timelines now there is really
no guarantee of victory at the Battle of the Bouvines over King
John; particularly since papal authority was so crucial to Philip
II. Or the reign of powerful monarchs like Louis IX.
Had the Protestants in later times been more willing to
compromise...
Luther went to great lengths to compromise with the RCC.
Furthermore, the RCC had for several hundred years openly
persecuted any deviation from orthodoxy (e.g., Lollards, Hussites,
etc.). So much so that guarantees of safe passage for negotiations
were often revoked when the individual was in the hands of the
church or a secular authority friendly to it. That was the case of
the leader of the Hussites if I recall correctly.
Occitan probably would have recovered...
Occitan is one of numerous European languages which have
disappeared under the weight of more successful political
entities.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 5:54PM|#
Let me repost that:
grylliade,
I think you made my point quite nicely. :-) Religion is,
indeed, part of culture. It is the cultural differences that are
primary, not the religious; that's the point I'm trying to
make.
This sounds like a very artificial distinction at best and it makes
very little sense. Since religion is part of a culture then its
nature as part of that culture can explain a lot of the reasons why
people commit violence.
I'd say more an excuse to do so.
You can say that all you wish, but the primary sources disagree
with you. Perhaps you should consult them. It is clear that
religious zeal informed a significant part of the desire of the
secular and religious desire to destroy the Albigensians.
because the pope gave you permission . . . Had the pope,
instead of promising the land to the French nobles, claimed any
land of executed heretics for the church, I guarantee you the
crusade would never have happened.
Actually part of the land did go to the Church as I recall.
And the northern French persecution of Occitan didn't end
there.
Yes and no. Occitania contained some of the few regions which
continued to be exempt from various kingdom wide taxes and tolls up
to the rationalization of taxation, etc. during the French
Revolution.
Furthermore when you write the "Northern French" pray reveal, why
was such violence perpetrated against the Albigensian areas of
Occitania and not against other areas absorbed by France during its
rise into a fairly unified kingdom?
...and the French Revolution just made it worse.
I don't think that Occitania suffered any worse during the French
Revolution than other areas of France.
It was, and is, fairly naked cultural imperialism on the part
of the northern French.
Perhaps, but making the region's population orthodox Catholics was
a very important aspect of kingdom's efforts there. Indeed, that
sort of effort was widespread in Europe following the various
post-millenium "reforms" (e.g., a celibate priesthood, a more
uniform worship service, etc.). Enforcement of Orthodoxy was
Europe-wide by the time the Albigensian Crusade had gotten into
full swing. In other words, the crusade was a more extreme version
of the Church's efforts (along with secular authorities) to create
a more uniform religion.
Maybe it started with the Albigensian Crusade, but it sure as
hell didn't end there, and the non-religious motives have done more
to eliminate Occitan culture than the crusade ever did.
Perhaps, but what has this to do with the Albigensian Crusade
itself?
France at the time was one of the most powerful countries in
Europe...
Since we're talking about alternative timelines now there is really
no guarantee of victory at the Battle of the Bouvines over King
John; particularly since papal authority was so crucial to Philip
II. Or the reign of powerful monarchs like Louis IX.
Had the Protestants in later times been more willing to
compromise...
Luther went to great lengths to compromise with the RCC.
Furthermore, the RCC had for several hundred years openly
persecuted any deviation from orthodoxy (e.g., Lollards, Hussites,
etc.). So much so that guarantees of safe passage for negotiations
were often revoked when the individual was in the hands of the
church or a secular authority friendly to it. That was the case of
the leader of the Hussites if I recall correctly.
Occitan probably would have recovered...
Occitan is one of numerous European languages which have
disappeared under the weight of more successful political
entities.
Grotius|5.21.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Some background and observations:
(A) It should be noted that the Albigensian Crusade and other
efforts to enforce orthodoxy Europe-wide were committed under one
of Catholicism's most powerful Popes - Innocent III at a time when
the RCC at one of its periods maxmimum ascendence.
(B) When we're discussing religious violence we're discussing at
least two types of actors - elites (e.g., the priestly caste,
nobles, etc.) and non-elites. I'd say that even if the whole
"greed" or "convenience" notion applies to the former (and that is
even debateable for the majority - at the very least mixed motives
would be at play for most of them if I understand human nature at
all) it has a much more difficult time explaining the latter. Thus
religious fervor helps to easily explain the popularity of such
events as Peter the Hermit's "Peoples' Crusade" or the slaughter of
French Protestants by French Catholics masses on and around St.
Barthlomew's Day.
|5.21.07 @ 7:20PM|#
joe,
"People, particularly the Unionists, often used religion to whip up
the mob, but that doesn't change the essential nature of the
conflict, which was Irish vs. English."
Essential nature of the conflict?
Why, ask yourself, was there a conflict between the two groups?
What makes one "Irish" or "English" in this context when both
groups share geography. The conflict was originally framed in terms
of religious conflict ("protestant problem"). Leaders talked about
"catholic nations" and "protestant states." It wasn't only about
religion, but, as in the more detailed discussion between G&G
above, to try and pull the religious element out of the picture
ignores a primary, if not sole, motivating factor out of the mix. I
feel pretty comfortable that Northern Ireland's war was as much
about religion as the middle east conflict. It was not solely about
religion, but a religious conflict fed the seeds and roots of the
troubles and was more or less part of the picture from then on.
ktc2|5.21.07 @ 11:18PM|#
We just need to properly classify religion as a psychiatric disorder of the delusional variety and be done with it.
|5.22.07 @ 12:09AM|#
Psychiatric disorders, aren't they covered by the Ninth
Amendment?
...and does it really matter whether having them is in the best
interest of society?
I have to admit it feels kind of icky to read a discussion about
whether some people's free exercise is good for society. I mean,
where's that discussion headed to ultimately?
"It is the principle of separation of church and state that has
protected civil peace for more than two centuries in the U.S. and
it is one of the pillars of the secularism denounced by
Gingrich."
Yet another thing secularists can thank religious people for.
|5.22.07 @ 3:23AM|#
"I mean, where's that discussion headed to
ultimately?"
Just for the record, I think I'd feel as icky in a discussion about
whether atheists are good for society. ...and I don't think it's a
question of tolerance.
I'd just snicker if somebody started out a conversation with, "Not
that I'd ever advocate discriminating against atheists, but, just
for discussion purposes, might not society be better off if, say,
we rounded up all the atheists and they all died of natural
causes?"
...and then if the person started giving historical examples of
vicious atheists running amok. I mean, what's the point of that
discussion?
|5.22.07 @ 10:22AM|#
Neu Mejican,
England and Ireland do not "share geography." Ireland is an island,
which doesn't even share a border with England.
Different languages, different cultural backgrounds (the Angles and
Saxons never went to Ireland), different governments, different
nations.
"Why, ask yourself, was there a conflict between the two groups?"
Because England was the greatest colonizing power in human history,
and Ireland was next door.
Robert|5.22.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Occitan hasn't completely disappeared, but is reduced to dialect
status as Languedoc (langue d'oc). More or less, it's French
without as much of the strain on your facial muscles that Steve
Martin made fun of.
"Can you say for sure that it's any less of a violation of
their liberty for their school to have to be secular than for it to
be religious?" Um, yes? The DPW guys should pour the concrete and
make a nice, flat sidewalk. They shouldn't draw little crucifixes
in it. That's because a sidewalk is there for people to walk on,
not to help bring people to Jesus. In Math class, the teachers
should talk about math. Not Moses.
But nobody's drawing crucifixes in the sidewalk or talking of Moses
in Math. However, expansive gov't with lavish parks &
monuments, and school programs with assemblies & various
activities are more the place where the secular can be, just as
much as the religious, a robbery of some to promote the beliefs of
others. And under those conditions, where one side but not the
other gets constitutional protection and enforcement of such, the
religious might try to sneak in Xs on the
sidewalks with the excuse that they're for traction, or math
lessons like "3 Moseses + 8 Moseses = how many Moseses?"
If you could get rid of or at least shrink, shorten, &
cheapen gov't school programs, and cut out parks programs
& monuments, you would practically abolish the current
church-state controversies.
|5.22.07 @ 11:57AM|#
joe,
"England and Ireland do not "share geography.""
Very good joe. Do the unionists and the nationalists in Ireland
share geography?
"Different languages, different cultural backgrounds (the Angles
and Saxons never went to Ireland), different governments, different
nations."
Religious affiliation of the unionists just happens to match the
different culture of the English with whom they favor union.
Religious affilitation of the nationalists just happens (at least
at the start of the troubles) to match that of the rest of
Ireland.
Or are you going to maintain your position that religion is
inconsequential in the history of the conflict?
|5.22.07 @ 12:07PM|#
joe,
I just can't let this one pass...
"doesn't even share a border with England."
"Because England was the greatest colonizing power in human
history, and Ireland was next door."
The North channel could count as a shared border...but you'll tell
me that is shared with Scotland, just to be nitpicky.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245