Originally posted by vistesdOn the one hand, the main thrust of the Spanish Inquisition was in the first few decades or so - after that it pretty much settled down.
[b]My guess is that the Spanish people probably just about tolerated their Inquisition - particularly since it targetted (in the early years) conversos, who were not exactly loved by the general public.
That seems to make sense: when we talk about the “people’s” view of things, we need to note which people we’re talking about. Perhaps I can "tolera ...[text shortened]... was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up."[/b]
On the other hand, it kept the whole witch-hunt madness out of Spain a century or so later.
Originally posted by vistesdThis is a brilliant piece of wisdom.
"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up ...[text shortened]... was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
This thread has been focussed on the Inquisition. Let me provide another example.
Martin Luther on rebellion—
“This is what I hold and shall always hold, that I will be on the side of those who are the target of rebellion and against those who rebel, no matter how just their cause.” (My italics.)
Luther advising the nobles re the peasant’s revolt in Germany (in which an estimated 100,000 peasants were slaughtered)—
“Therefore, whosoever can, should smite, strangle, and stab, secretly or publicly, and should remember that there is nothing more poisonous, pernicious, and devilish than a rebellious man. Just as one must slay a mad dog, so, if you do not fight the rebels, they will fight you, and the whole country with you.”
This seems to be a pretty good article on Luther’s inflammatory rhetoric (which I do not think was any less hysterical when addressing the RCC)—
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ503.HTM
The desire for social order, stability, morality and security; the fear of revolt, of social upheaval, can be the impetus for actions that result in atrocity. If later scholars decide that “only” 80,000 peasants died, will that matter? Does the fact that Luther later expressed regret for his inflammatory rhetoric excuse him? Does his fear for the social order excuse him? Does it make the atrocity less atrocius? Should one man or one institution have the power to decide? (One biographer that I read claimed that Luther had so much power in Germany at that time, that the nobles would not have acted without his blessing.)
The fact that I grew up Lutheran, and that in other areas I have a good deal of regard for him, does not mean that I can mount any kind of apology for his actions re the peasant revolt.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, the right to confront accusers is sacrosant. Your examples are violations of that right that have been created over the last few decades and allowed erroneously by judges who don't take fundamental rights seriously enough. What other due process rights that are enumerated in the US Constitution (ENUMERATED, NOT created; they existed prior to 1787; don't be thick) do you feel are not "sacrosant" so that if I point out other legal systems had them and the Inquistion didn't, you intend to dispute their validity? I want to save time; if your conclusion is NO due process rights are sacrosant and thus the Inquistion was perfectly fair in disposing of any or all of them then I won't waste my time researching.
[b]Where did you ask such questions??? You asserted that the Inquistion was fairer; why don't you do your own research before making such a claim since its obvious you have no knowledge of prior legal systems?
It is true I have no knowledge of prior legal systems. However, virtually every objective (i.e. neither Catholic nor anti-Catholic) acc ...[text shortened]... red by the Inquistion?[/b]
Don't be anachronistic - we are talking about prior systems here.[/b]
EDIT: BTW, I would appreciate a link from the Roman records that says Christians were persecuted for not believing in the Roman gods.
Originally posted by lucifershammerOn the other hand, it kept the whole witch-hunt madness out of Spain a century or so later.
On the one hand, the main thrust of the Spanish Inquisition was in the first few decades or so - after that it pretty much settled down.
On the other hand, it kept the whole witch-hunt madness out of Spain a century or so later.
Oh, the vagrant ways of history! On the other hand, can we judge the morality of people’s actions by the unplanned (and, ergo, unintended) later results? Or only by the actions they committed at the time?
A thought experiment: Suppose I cold-bloodedly murder my neighbor because, say, I was revolted by his pagan religion. Years later, through some Minority Report fantasy technology, it is discovered that my neighbor would’ve committed awful serial rape/murders had I not murdered him first (I, of course, had no way of knowing this, and thus it was in no way part of my motivation). Does that in any way mitigate my guilt?
Originally posted by vistesdBut Luther wasn't as foul of a German as Hitler was! Therefore, he was virtuous! How dare you analyze his actions in a non-relativistic manner from an objective point of view! People always criticize Luther, but they never point out how bad other Germans are in contrast, and thus fail to acknowledge that the resulting deaths of only several thousand was a blessing - it could have been six million, had it been a less virtuous German giving advice!
This thread has been focussed on the Inquisition. Let me provide another example.
Martin Luther on rebellion—
“This is what I hold and shall always hold, that I will be on the side of those who are the target of rebellion and against those who rebel, no matter how just their cause.” (My italics.)
Luther advising the nobles re the peasant’s r ...[text shortened]... r him, does not mean that I can mount any kind of apology for his actions re the peasant revolt.
Besides, his inflammatory rhetoric is excusable - he's German. It's in the blood. Like mine. I wouldn't be surprised if no1 was a German as well.
Originally posted by vistesdHe was asking about the Albigensians, of whom I believe the Cathars were a subset. He was not asking about all heretics. Apparently he is trying to imply that secular authorities would have found their beliefs such a threat that they would have exterminated them on their own. This claim is not helped by his admission that Pope Innocent III declared Holy War upon them.
Theoretically, only the Cathars would have died out. 😕
http://www.countylaw.com/JuryHistory.html
In 1166, England set up a system of local grand juries. These were very much like grand juries today except they actively investigated allegations rather than merely hearing evidence. A Grand Jury had to approve the filing of any charges against a person. The GJ was composed of your peers i.e. people who lived in the same area as you. It was not composed of professional Inquistors with ulterior motives appointed by Rome who could be from anywhere.
England 1 Inquistion 0
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's in my blood too. Why I read Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Fortunately, I have some Jewish blood too, so I'm really a mensch. 🙂
But Luther wasn't as foul of a German as Hitler was! Therefore, he was virtuous! How dare you analyze his actions in a non-relativistic manner from an objective point of view! People always criticize Luther, but they never point out how bad other Germans are in contrast, and thus fail to acknowledge that the resulting deaths of only ...[text shortened]... German. It's in the blood. Like mine. I wouldn't be surprised if no1 was a German as well.
Originally posted by no1marauderI thought it was the other way 'round: that Albi was a center of Catharism. If not, I stand corrected.
He was asking about the Albigensians, of whom I believe the Cathars were a subset. He was not asking about all heretics. Apparently he is trying to imply that secular authorities would have found their beliefs such a threat that they would have exterminated them on their own. This claim is not helped by his admission that Pope Innocent III declared Holy War upon them.
Originally posted by ivanhoeLOL!
[b]Nemesio: "That is, I don't care if Ivanhoe calls me 'Culture of Death Monger'
until he is blue in the face. I have a problem when he tells me that
I should be imprisoned for it."
Just for the record: I have never called Nemesio a "Culture of Death Monger" and I never stated he should be imprisoned for it.[/b]
I didn't mean to suggest that you did!
LOL!
Sorry 🙁
Nemesio
It strikes me as we pursue this discussion that there are three reasons we may seek to make a moral “apology” (in the old sense of the word), in whole or in part, for certain historical events:
(1) Research shows that the events (and/or the intentions of the parties) were so different—and so clearly different—from what we thought, that the moral questions “cry out,” so to speak, to be revisited.
(2) We have certain loyalties, on the one hand, or animosities on the other, toward the parties or causes involved that we seize on any evidence that would cast them in a different (even slightly better/worse) light.
(3) Oh, hell, I got distracted and forgot the third one! Somebody else can fill it in…
Originally posted by vistesdMy Medieval Sourcebook says they are the same thing. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/heresy1.html
I thought it was the other way 'round: that Albi was a center of Catharism. If not, I stand corrected.
So I'm still right.😛
EDIT (for DrScribbles): I have very little German blood in me; the percentages are hard to figure out but my blood is somewhere in the vicinity of 50% Irish.