Well, that was sure unexpected--

"Ha! No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

(Sorry. Can't help it.)

The Vatican always promises cooperation but when the researchers threaten to hit bone, they back off immediately.

Bart:

The investigations keep clearing them, so they've become much more co-operative. So much of history was written by Protestants and then Marxists with axes to grind against the Church that nearly everything folks think they know proves false on examination.

The Vatican presents findings largely exonerating itself?

Pardon me if I am not overcome by sheer amazement.

No, investigatorts allowed access to its files have. For instance, no one but folks like Harry and Bart still take seriously the smear of Pope Pius and the Inquisition has been placed in a historical context that makes those who continually invoke it sound silly.

Which smear of which Pius are you referring to? There were so many.

The ones offered by Kurtzer, Carroll, Cornwell, Goldenhagen, Wills, Zuccotti,(and in a strictly fictional vein Dan Brown & Dan Silva)all of them
were cited in Silva's the Confessor,

You have to understand, Harry, that the Vatican Ratline never existed and all those Nazis ended up in Latin America, Canada, Australia, and even the US through the use of a Star Trek teleporter, not because they got bogus Vatican passports.

Give the Vatican another century and they'll be trying to convince the world that the Holocaust was an attempt by Jews to butcher Catholics.

Pius XII for Patron Saint of Politicians.

Bart:

It was just a toxic mix of Socialism and Applied Darwinism, botrh of which the Church opposed.

What intrigues me here is not so much Harry's and Bart's splenetic fulminations against the Catholic Church (such bigotry has always exisited), but why they let us Protestants off so lightly. Must have something to do with jewels and mitres.

You know, guys, if you really want to fight the old Protocols of the Elders mentality, you may want to start by dropping the Scarlet Woman of Rome schtick and pretending the urge to kill and conquer beats in the heart of every Muslim. It makes life simple, I know, but we all have to grow up sometime.

Here's an interesting quote from Evelyn Waugh's "Edmund Campion":

"It was by Mr Powell's advice that [Mr] Persons was dissuaded from challenging [prominent Calvinist, Theodore] Beza to a public disputation, the loser of which should be publicly burned alive in the market place."

That was in 1570s Geneva, where it would seem that they took their debates a tad more seriously than we do now. (Though Bush did wear a bullet proof vest during the debates with Kerry.)

Not willing and likely incapable of participating in such debates, my ancestors left Holland around that time and headed for Russia at the invitation of Catherine. Some years later, the family tree was pruned rather severely by Stalin in Siberia.

So it would seem that there is a little bit of Inquisition in everyone, even Marxist saints.

Randal:

No society can thrive without an Inquisition of some kind or another. All that matters is the nature of your Orthodoxy.

Peter:

The institutional nature of Catholicism makes it a better target for psychoses.

Hey, I'm all for Inquisitions when they are necessary (like those bomb sniffing dogs in Fallouja convicting the men stopped from trying to leave, or the Patriot Act).

In many cases, however, they seem to fuel the fire of other societies.

A good example is the rapid development of the Swiss textile industry following the Huguenots persecution out of France.

Randall:

They're always necessary and always ongoing. Go stand in your cafeteria at work or school and speak your mind honestly, about the institution and fellow members. See how they react.

For example:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-cartoon13.html

Peter, you have not been paying attention. I've already stated that the project of Islam requires the murder of infidels. Only Pollyannas like Orrin and Bush think differently.

I make more fun of Catholicism because as an ex-Catholic I know more about it. But I can ridicule Protestantism and other religions if you like.

It would be interesting to hear if Orrin will admit that any branch of Christianity has ever committed a crime against humanity, qua religion. Apparently he wouldn't.

There is no morality in any religion. The Albigenses were far more moral than the Christians who slaughtered them.

Harry:

Of course they have. But the criomes are far outweighed by the good. The problem is that the isms you believe in--Darwinism, marxism, secularism, etc--have no goods to outweight their crimes.

Harry:

"Only Pollyannas like Orrin and Bush think differently."

Yes, Heaven help us if we have to rely on those two weenies.

Secularism, put an end to centuries of religiously inspired slaughter. Without it, the vibrant religious environment the US has today would be impossible.

Darwinism is simply an explanation for observations, and is no more guilty of crimes than is Thermodynamics.

Marxism is just another religion, only with the particular fortune of being harnessed to the power of the state and having industrial means at its disposal.

Jeff:

Secularism/Darwinism/Marxism brought us the 100 million deaths of the 20th Century.

Jeff, I disagree that it was secularism that brought about the United States. William Penn created a safe haven for persecuted religious peoples, and the constitution later guaranteed that right to its citizens.

Secular society is a parasite preying upon the good will of religious society. (Islam seems to have no good will, but Christianity and Judaism do.)

And, I do not mean parasite pejoratively. It is just that without a higher calling than simply secular self interest, a society cannot exist.

Furthermore, the evils that Harry rails on about are a result of politics, not religion. Of course a tyrant will use all means available, including the distortion of religion. But, for the religious, "our citizenship is in heaven."

Randall:

I didn't say secularism brought about the United States. Rather, the more secular the government--the more it prevents any religion a part in government--the more vibrant the country's religious life will be.

A state of affairs I, for one, am quite happy with.

But the key is keeping obeisance to any specific religion out of government.

Someone--Bart, I think, noted several days ago that the best way to envervate religion is to provide it direct government support. OJ likes to slam the secular Europeans, but fails to note that every European country has a government supported state church.

Also, you fail entirely to account for enlightened self interest. Everyone does it all the time; the religious simply put a God-gloss on it.

Do you really mean to say that what the Spanish did to the conversos, or the religious tests in almost all countries through the 18th century, or the "troubles" in Northern Ireland were merely political.

The prods hated the papists, and vice versa, for perceived heresy.

For the non-religious, the crimes of religion require an accounting right here on earth.

OJ:
Darwinism brought nothing of the kind. It would make no more, or less, sense to say The World Church of the Creator is applied Christianity, than to say Nazism is applied Darwinism.

Marxism and Nazism were every bit as much religions as Catholicism or Islam. The invocation of some supreme being is only one of many characteristics of a religion, and far from the most important one.

Every time you point a finger at one of those creeds, you point it at yourself.

Jeff:

The World Church is applied Darwinism too.

Randall, history is mostly a summary of crimes committed in the name of and for the purposes of religion.

There was no public clamor for the Spanish to expel the Jews in 1492, it was a motive of pure religious hate and very damaging to the politics of the country. A few years later, under religious pressure, the king of Portugal was forced to proclaim an expulsion of Jews from his kingdom, but he was more intelligent and/or cynical than the Spanish monarchs and faked it. He wanted to keep his Jews, and did, mostly.

That Jews were not exterminated by Christians was solely a function of political and/or economic considerations overruling religious hatred. The Jews were protected, when they were protected, by grasping secularists. They never were protected by religionists.

Your formula is glib but does not stand up to examination.

Harry:

You have that precisely backwards. It was a popular racially-motivated act, which, not coincidentally, came with the centralization of a powerful state. That said, there's no shortage of religious violence and even murder throughout history--arguments about important ideas are usually settled violently.

A little late, but...

Jeff -- yes, the religious tests were obviously political. Consider the English act of 1581, "To retain the Queen Majesty's subjects in due obedience", which made it high treason to reconcile anyone or to be reconciled to the Catholic Church. This followed up on "The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity" which established the Anglican church.

William Cecil enforced these acts to maintain and increase Elizabeth's power. It was her supremacy over the Pope that they were enforcing. The Catholics who disobeyed lost their estates, which were turned over to the informers and the crown.

This is *political*, is it not? It had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with who her subjects ruler was: the Pope or her.

Harry -- It is called racism. And, as with all forms of racism, it is political.

How were the religious wars of Europe any different than any other feudal or tribal conflicts? People disagree and they fight. Big deal.

But, to call it religion is, shall we say, glib?

Randall:

Excellent points--I hadn't known all those details.

However, why did is the prohibition against religious tests for office the only mention of religion in the constitution? Surely that must be about religion.

The troubles in Northern Ireland seem to have had a clearly religious component.

OJ:
"... arguments about important ideas are usually settled violently."

Killing people over competing fairy tales seems a particularly stupid waste of life.

About that commandment, the don't murder one. Is there a double-secret important ideas loop-hole?

Jeff:

So you oppose the Iraq wars?

Killing isn't a sin, murder is. Ideas are worth killing for.

No.

The Iraq war is about the physical threat Saddam posed to the US.

Which Big Spook Iraqis happen to believe in is immaterial, as Thomas Jefferson wisely noted.

Pardon my sloppy wording, I really meant to say " Murdering people over competing fairy tales is a particularly stupid waste of life."

You still haven't enlightened us where in the 10 Commandments it says where murder is OK to get rid of ideas you don't like.

Jeff:

Threat? right....

All wars are just about ideas.

Thou shalt have no other God but me.

Juadism and Christianity, which is the fulfillment of Judaism, are not fairy tails, but Divine revelation. Wars, inquisitions, etc. are fought over the ideas surrounding this truth. Yes, murdering people over accepting vs. rejecting this truth is a sensless waste of life and a poor evangelistic technique as well.

OJ:

Right.

Remember the nuclear weapons program that was within 18 months of fruition when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

The former is termed, by most people, a threat. The latter is termed, by most people, far more than an idea.

This war was about the idea of the kind of threat Saddam would pose as sanctions collapsed.

I suppose that is an idea, but it isn't the competing fairy tale kind.

"Thou shalt have no other God but me"

Is "or else murder away" a double secrete codicil known only to you?

You don't give God much credit, do you. One would think a true believer would attribute to God enough power to deal with that sort of thing without your help.

He was no threat. We deposed him because we disagreed with him.

Sanctions were collapsing. He was once, he would have been again.

You sound like you need to be shilling for Moveon.org.

He never was. He couldn't even beat Iran. Moveon.org is right about the threat. The war wasn't about that though.

Are you nuts?

He was 18 months from a nuclear weapon in 1991. The war was about reconstituting that, and more.

But to presume that an angry, unleashed Saddam with billions to spend would not be a threat amounts to the sort of analysis to make Pollyanna, and Moveon, proud.

The Soviets hasd nukes and they were barely a threat. The Chinese and Koreans have them and aren't. We just disagreed with his politics. That's all war ever is.

"The Soviets hasd nukes and they were barely a threat."

So long as we didn't take sufficient offense at their ideas to actually do something about it.

During the rape of Nanking, what do you suppose war was to the Chinese?

A question of who should govern them.