No one Expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Image result for the spanish inquisition





In his most recent post on Cadre Comments BK writes: "There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square."[1] BK wrote a fine article and he identifies five areas of attack: "(1) Biblical patriarchy is little more than a mask for men’s will to power; (2) Christians view the Bible as something which allows them to keep their power and privilege – it’s a product of its times; (3) Christianity is the Enemy of Science; (4) the Spanish Inquisition was a bloodbath motivated by religious fanaticism; and (5) Christianity promotes Victimhood Culture." BK focuses on 4. He discusses a book by Dr. Foley and quotes him as saying:

The Spanish Inquisition has become a favorite bludgeon to use against the Catholic Church in particular and against Christianity in general – to “prove” that Christians who care about sound doctrine are repressive, bloodthirsty, and insanely power-hungry. Reports of its atrocities are greatly exaggerated. Indeed, the methods of the Inquisitors were more human than those of any contemporary secular court. One historian has compared the level of brutality of the Spanish Inquisition’s interrogation methods to American police departments in the 1930s. Of the 44,701 Inquisition cases on record, only 2 percent involved the use of torture. The Spanish Inquisition never executed a single individual: as a Church tribunal, the most it could do was declare someone guilty of a capital crime and then hand him over to the State, which wielded the power to execute. In fact, Planned Parenthood kills more people every six days than the Spanish Inquisition did in 350 years.[2]

Atheists who try to use the Inquisition argumet to indict all of Christianity are really flying n the face of a major trend in modern historiography. This goes for the entire narrative of modernity,and it is one of the most amazing things I learned when I first started doctoral work in history of ideas; the entire modern enlightenment narrative has been re-written. Atheists in the popular sphere are one thing, but the direction of actual academic historians is going in the  opposite direction. Historians think less in terms of time periods and more in terms of movements. So the Renaissance is not a time period as much as it is a movement of certain classes and occupations and thinkers. Nor was the Renaissance a time of abandonment of religion or of great secularism. In fact the vast majority of people in Renaissance Italy were never aware there was a Renaissance.[3]


The new take on the enlightenment understands enlightenment not as a time period that unfolded out of the dark ages into a brilliant time of modern progress,but as a series of moments that must be understood in national context. The French enlightenment was anti-calearical and anti-Catholic owing to the relationship of Catholicism to French monarchy. But The English and Scottish enlightenments (to which the French are deeply indebted) were led by Christian thinkers such as Newton,  Boyle, and Reid. The rise of modern science was shepherded into place by such Christian thinkers.[4] Similarly the Spanish inquisition has been reevaluated by modern secular historians. 


The Spanish Inquisition has always generated huge literature and has been  a political football as long as history has been academic. There were inquisitions in other couturiers such as France, but the Spanish version has the reputation as most brutal because it was state sponsored and it's brutality was driven as much by political repression as by fanatical religious ideas.[5] Transitionally modern historians have looked at the subject from a variety of perspectives, but the major view point fell to the Protestant historians who saw it as the arch lesson in not letting the RCC have governmental power.Starting at the early  20th  century Henry Charles Lea published History of the Inquisition in Spain.[6] He set the stage for the major view point for remainder of the century.  "For him the Inquisition also exemplified 'theocratic absolutism' at its worst, a power that had so weakened Spain that it was helpless in the face of Yankee might to defend what little remained of its vast overseas empire during the Spanish-American War of 1898."[7]


By mid century,however, the first major work to challenge this view was produced by Henry Kamen (The Spanish Inquisition (1965) [8] who was a British gradate student at the time. The work was controversial, as he argued that the Inquisition was not as brutal as thought and not powerful enough to have precipitated Spain's 's decline. But the book was a landmark as it kicked off a spate of quantitative articles that sought to produce hard data supporting or disproving that view point.[9]


These initial quantitative studies led to a whole new school of historiography of the Inquisition starting in the 1970s. This school is multidisciplinary, and seeks a more objective view, and challenges traditional view. One common concession traced this this wors is summed up by Rawlings:



Spanish Inquisition was a far less repressive instrument of ideological control than had hitherto been thought,and that torture and the death penalty were only rarely applied–almost exclusively during the first two decades of its existence. By comparison, other European countries, including England, France and Germany, continued to burn heretics until well into the seventeenth century.... Nor was the Holy Office as powerful an institution as previously envisaged.In practice it had to accommodate itself to the jurisdiction of other organs of government,as well as to that of the Church and the Crown. It frequently wrestled with conflicts of authority within its own ranks.[10]
How many people died the Inquisition? Estimates very wildly. The Secretary to the inquisition, Juan Antonio Llorente (1756–1823), placed it at 32,000.[11] The view among modern  historians  tends to discount this figure seeing it as greatly exaggerated. Kamen laces it at about 3,000.[12] Roth also numbers 300,00 as put on trial and forced to do penance,[13]

Despite the lesser scope of abuse there is no mistaking the fact that there was abuse. Death is not the only harm. Being put on trail led to mocking and ridicule, loss of property and reputation, and imprisonment. Moreover, the Spanish inquisition was used as a political weapon against Jews and other minority groups. Yet atheists seeking to use the Spanish Inquisition as an indictment against Christianity are setting themselves upon a dead ed path. There were inquisitions in France, Italy,and other countries they did not lead to the  abuse nor lend themselves as tools of oppression, the major difference was not religion, these were all Christian countries. Rawlings sums up the difference: "the Spanish Inquisition was different in one fundamental respect: it was responsible to the Crown rather than the Pope and was used to consolidate state interest. It soon acquired a reputation for being a barbarous, repressive instrument of racial and religious intolerance that regularly employed torture as well as the death penalty as punishments and severely restricted Spain’s intellectual development for generations."[14] 

It is neither religion in general nor Christianity specifically that led to the abuse but the conflation of temporal power and political agenda with the Gospel and the will of God that made the difference in the Spanish Inquisition. It is always a mistake to assume that the City of man can be turned into the City of God. As Saint Augustine tells us these are two different cities with different ends the latter can  ever be the  former.





Sources

[1] BK, "Responding to the 'Crimes of Christianity,' the Inquisition," Cadre Comments, (
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2018/01/responding-to-crimes-of-christianity.html
(accessed 1/20/18)

[2] Foley quoted in Ibid,

[3] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, NY:St Martin's Pressinc,second edition, 1987.1-7.

the Chapter Title":The Myth of the Renaissance." The professes pointed out that 82% of artistic commissions were for religious purposes, But according to Brukhardt Renaissance art was a secular awaking,

[4] Roy Porter  Mikalas Teich, ed. Enlightenment in National Context. Cambrodge, London: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

[5] Helen Rawlins , "Historiography of the Inquisition," pdf from work by the author The Spanish Inquisition,  Wiley-Blackwell; 1 edition (July 1, 2005)
thttp://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631205993/0631205993_4_001.pdf
(accessed 1/20/18)

[6] Henry Charles, Lea, The History of The inquisition in Spain. New York : Macmillan, 1906.

[7] Richard Kagan, "A Kinder, Gentler Inquisition," New York Times Book Review (April 19,1998).
http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/19/reviews/980419.19kagent.html
(accessed 1/20/18)

[8] Henry Kamen The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. New Haven: Yale University Press, fourth ed., 2014 first ed  by Widenfeld and Nichloson1965.

[9] Kagan, NYT, op cit.

[10] Rawlings, Op cit.

[11] Cecil Roth, The Spanish Inquisition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1964; reprint, 1996, 123

[12] Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition...op. cit. (Fourth Edition, 2014), 253.
[13] Roth, Op Cit






Comments

BK said…
Good article. Well-researched. Thank you.
im-skeptical said…
Of course, the whole idea that this is a major area of attack against Christianity is not consistent with reality. I don't see it. Not that it never gets mentioned. But just as you feel that the claims harm done by the Inquisition are greatly exaggerated, I think that the use of this as a line of attack against Christians is greatly exaggerated. As far as I can tell, it is something that just doesn't come up on a day-to-day basis.
Joe Hinman said…
Bill, thanks.


Skep:


Of course, the whole idea that this is a major area of attack against Christianity is not consistent with reality. I don't see it. Not that it never gets mentioned. But just as you feel that the claims harm done by the Inquisition are greatly exaggerated, I think that the use of this as a line of attack against Christians is greatly exaggerated. As far as I can tell, it is something that just doesn't come up on a day-to-day basis.


well now it will be even less so. I don;t know how long you have been doing this but this kind of arraignment was used a lot more back in the early days of the century,before I began bashing the argument,
The Pixie said…
Just did a quick search at CARM, and it looks like it is far more common for protestants to use the Inquisition to attack Catholics than atheists to attach Christians there.

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/churches-orthodox-heterodox/general-church-topics/roman-catholicism/5040671-redeemed/page5
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/secular/general-secular-and-apologetic-topics/society-ethics-politics/4998345-atheism-ethics/page5

I think the only way it can be used to attack Christianity is to ask why God would allow people to do that in his name. And Christianity is good at rationalising why God should not stop evil.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Just did a quick search at CARM, and it looks like it is far more common for protestants to use the Inquisition to attack Catholics than atheists to attach Christians there.

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/churches-orthodox-heterodox/general-church-topics/roman-catholicism/5040671-redeemed/page5
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/secular/general-secular-and-apologetic-topics/society-ethics-politics/4998345-atheism-ethics/page5

so what?doesn't invalidate my points

I think the only way it can be used to attack Christianity is to ask why God would allow people to do that in his name. And Christianity is good at rationalising why God should not stop evil.

that's explained logically by my theoducy
im-skeptical said…
I think your account of the inquisition goes a little too far in trying to distance the Inquisition from its religious foundations and from the church. If was, after all, fundamentally religious in its motivation. Yes, the Spanish monarchy used it for political control, but you can't deny that the monarchy was ordained by the church in the first place (as part of a power-sharing arrangement), and this is exactly what we see when there is no separation between church and state. And when the religious authorities turned their victims over to the state to be punished, the state authorities were still doing the bidding of the church.
Joe Hinman said…
btw Pix,the message board is back
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
I think your account of the inquisition goes a little too far in trying to distance the Inquisition from its religious foundations and from the church. If was, after all, fundamentally religious in its motivation.

They had the same motivations in Italy France,and Bohemia with much different results.

Yes, the Spanish monarchy used it for political control, but you can't deny that the monarchy was ordained by the church in the first place (as part of a power-sharing arrangement), and this is exactly what we see when there is no separation between church and state.

That's like part of my point not to conflate government with religion,


And when the religious authorities turned their victims over to the state to be punished, the state authorities were still doing the bidding of the church.

where they did not give the religious people the state power they did not producer the abuses.

Let's talk about the one million people murdered by atheists in those states where atheism controlled state power. Even without religious motivations state power still leads to corruption,it would seem state power is the problem
im-skeptical said…
Let's talk about the one million people murdered by atheists in those states where atheism controlled state power.
- Communism was the motivating ideology, as well as the source of power. To claim that this was a product of atheism (which is not an ideology) is total bullshit. They only pushed atheism as a means to remove competing ideologies. That leaves communism as the dominant ideology with no competition. People kill because of ideologies, not because of atheism.
Joe Hinman said…
you are just special pleading, Watt makes you think they I*inquisitors of Spain didn't have their own ideology they were into serving the kigism or something,
Joe Hinman said…
They only pushed atheism as a means to remove competing ideologies. That leaves communism as the dominant ideology with no competition. People kill because of ideologies, not because of atheism.

don't try to tell me they weren't real atheists, do the no Scotsman thing, you guys are so transparent, you do every fallacy you try stick on Christians,
im-skeptical said…
you are just special pleading, Watt makes you think they I*inquisitors of Spain didn't have their own ideology they were into serving the kigism or something
- I am not completely ignorant of history, Joe. Read this.


don't try to tell me they weren't real atheists, do the no Scotsman thing, you guys are so transparent, you do every fallacy you try stick on Christians
- That's not what I said, Joe. Nobody ever killed someone for the cause of atheism, because atheism isn't a "cause". Communism is a cause, and people kill for it. Christianity is a cause, and people kill for it. Because they are ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
you are just special pleading, Watt makes you think they I*inquisitors of Spain didn't have their own ideology they were into serving the kigism or something
- I am not completely ignorant of history, Joe. Read this.

all state power generates a legitimizing ideology,


don't try to tell me they weren't real atheists, do the no Scotsman thing, you guys are so transparent, you do every fallacy you try stick on Christians

- That's not what I said, Joe. Nobody ever killed someone for the cause of atheism, because atheism isn't a "cause". Communism is a cause, and people kill for it. Christianity is a cause, and people kill for it. Because they are ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology.

that is utter bull shit you are still special pleading, you are just saying "My ideology is the true one, so you can't criticize it any criticism that seems connected to my ideology is really about this phony version of it,

can't you see that's the same logic christians use in answering the same attacks and when they do atheists say "I hear bagpipes it's the no true Scotsman fallacy,"

"Christianity is a cause, and people kill for it. Because they are ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology." you have no idea what communists think they are doing,I do because I was one! you do not know what you are talking about, They understood atheism as basic to their cause.
im-skeptical said…
all state power generates a legitimizing ideology
- OK. So you completely ignored the historical information that describes the RELIGIOUS agenda of the inquisition.


you are just saying "My ideology is the true one, so you can't criticize it
- Listen to what I say: ATHEISM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY. It is a lack of belief in YOUR ideology. An atheist can have an ideology, such as humanism or communism, and by the way, some Christians are communists, too. And if you need an example of exempting one's ideology from criticism, look no further that your own "religious a priori", where you explicitly claim a "Freedom from the Need to prove", and declare that your belief is exempt from all scientific or logical scrutiny.


can't you see that's the same logic christians use
- No, it isn't. I'm NOT saying that communist dictators aren't true atheists. Yes, they are atheists. This is not "no true Scotsman". What I'm saying is that their motivating ideology is communism, not atheism. Their ideology has NOTHING in common with mine. I'm not a communist.


you have no idea what communists think they are doing,I do because I was one!
- Good for you. I have never been one, nor do I share their ideology. And why are you trying to use a "tu quoque" argument against me when I say the inquisition was religious?
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
all state power generates a legitimizing ideology

- OK. So you completely ignored the historical information that describes the RELIGIOUS agenda of the inquisition.

so you completely ignore the information that describes the RELIGIOUS agenda of the inquisitions in countries like France where did not run rampant,you completely ignore teh historical fact that only in Spain did they go wild and that was where they had state power. You conceptual ignoring the fact that having state power is the operative factor not being religious.

in other words you are just ignoring the argument.



you are just saying "My ideology is the true one, so you can't criticize it
- Listen to what I say: ATHEISM IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY.

ahahahahahahahhaahahahahah thanks for proving my point, my ideoloogy is not ideology it's the truth! that's what they all say,

It is a lack of belief in YOUR ideology. An atheist can have an ideology, such as humanism or communism, and by the way, some Christians are communists, too. And if you need an example of exempting one's ideology from criticism, look no further that your own "religious a priori", where you explicitly claim a "Freedom from the Need to prove", and declare that your belief is exempt from all scientific or logical scrutiny.

No atheism is obviously more than lack of a belief, it's a movement, read Atheist watch I proved that every day for years,actually it's a dying movement,none of us un-brainwashed people outside of your cult buy that line.


can't you see that's the same logic christians use
- No, it isn't. I'm NOT saying that communist dictators aren't true atheists.

right I know that's what makes it so hilarious no one with any brains would say that, no one who knows anything about communism would say that,it's stupid, I was a communist I know you don't.

Yes, they are atheists. This is not "no true Scotsman". What I'm saying is that their motivating ideology is communism, not atheism. Their ideology has NOTHING in common with mine. I'm not a communist.

same deal with the Spanish Inquisition it was their loyalism to the Spanish crown not their religion that motivated thehm,


you have no idea what communists think they are doing,I do because I was one!

- Good for you. I have never been one, nor do I share their ideology. And why are you trying to use a "tu quoque" argument against me when I say the inquisition was religious?

you just got thorugh lecturing me on what you think communusts are,

you are braim washed by your ideology,
im-skeptical said…
so you completely ignore the information that describes the RELIGIOUS agenda of the inquisitions in countries like France where did not run rampant ... n other words you are just ignoring the argument.
- What argument? This article was about the SPANISH Inquisition.

ahahahahahahahhaahahahahah thanks for proving my point, my ideoloogy is not ideology it's the truth! that's what they all say
- Atheism is not an ideology. It makes no truth claims. It is a lack of belief in YOUR ideology.

No atheism is obviously more than lack of a belief, it's a movement, read Atheist watch
- It doesn't matter what claims you make. your claims are false. You don't know what you're talking about. Lack of belief is not an ideology. There may be movements among atheists, but atheism is not a movement.

no one who knows anything about communism would say that,it's stupid, I was a communist I know you don't.
- If you know so much about communism, then you would understand that I don't share their ideology, and you wouldn't try to pin their atrocities on me. Thar is sheer ignorance.

same deal with the Spanish Inquisition it was their loyalism to the Spanish crown not their religion that motivated thehm
- It's still religious tribalism. It was about punishing heretics. It was conducted by religious authorities under the auspices of the church. Who cares if they were loyal to the crown? IT'S RELIGIOUS.

you just got thorugh lecturing me on what you think communusts are, you are braim washed by your ideology
- No I didn't. I am claiming that whatever their ideology is, it's mot mine. I am not one of them.

And "tu quoque" is a logical fallacy that Trump uses every day. It doesn't help your argument at all. You should know better.
Weekend Fisher said…
It seems to me the difference between the inquisition in Spain and in other places is a natural outgrowth of the particular history of Spain. Spain had just spent a number of centuries under Muslim occupation, which involved quite a few times of systematic oppression of the native population. The Spanish had been badly-treated by the invaders at many points -- which is generally the point of invasions, no matter how well the apologists may spin it. Empires are rarely benevolent to occupied territories, and it's even more rare that any benevolence would last. Plus -- awkward thing -- the occupiers played "divide and conquer" games with different groups of people in the occupied territories, set up little arrangements guaranteed to increase enmity between the conquered Jewish and Christian populations so that they wouldn't unite forces against the Muslims. So when the Spanish won back their homeland, they wanted their invaders out -- plus anyone who had collaborated with the invaders in the oppression. To modern sensibilities that can seem even more gauche than wanting the illegal aliens out. But to them it started as homeland security to get rid of the fifth column, in light of then-current events and the neighboring would-be invaders. (Did you know that the guy who wrote Don Quixote was, earlier in his life, captured and taken to northern Africa as a slave by the great oppressive empire of their day? It wasn't like some distant or idle threat.)

If you keep an eye on what I've said, you'll notice that I'm not justifying the Spanish inquisition; I'm describing why I believe things unfolded so differently in Spain.

Take care & God bless
Anne / WF
Joe Hinman said…
Atheism is not an ideology. It makes no truth claims. It is a lack of belief in YOUR ideology.

yes it is, you can;t ca ;t change that just by saying it, kook at the facts,

No atheism is obviously more than lack of a belief, it's a movement, read Atheist watch
- It doesn't matter what claims you make. your claims are false. You don't know what you're talking about. Lack of belief is not an ideology. There may be movements among atheists, but atheism is not a movement.

yes it does matter,it has all the ear arks, for years they said "we are not a movement," when they had the faction fight with atheism plus plus (only ideologies have faction fights) i quoted 12 atheist leaders saying "I am worried about the future of the movement, the Movement, THE MOVEMENT!!!! after years of saying it's not a movement,

no one who knows anything about communism would say that,it's stupid, I was a communist I know you don't.

- If you know so much about communism, then you would understand that I don't share their ideology, and you wouldn't try to pin their atrocities on me. Thar is sheer ignorance.

total bull I can predict everything you are going to say,

same deal with the Spanish Inquisition it was their loyalism to the Spanish crown not their religion that motivated thehm

- It's still religious tribalism. It was about punishing heretics. It was conducted by religious authorities under the auspices of the church. Who cares if they were loyal to the crown? IT'S RELIGIOUS.

you have no evidence of any kind of tribalism, you are just using special pleading because the logic is exactly the same with communism, you saying my side is special because we have the truth.,"

you just got through lecturing me on what you think communists are, you are brain washed by your ideology


- No I didn't. I am claiming that whatever their ideology is, it's mot mine. I am not one of them.

And "tu quoque" is a logical fallacy that Trump uses every day. It doesn't help your argument at all. You should know better.

that's just black is write slide. all your arguments are informal fallacies

1/24/2018 05:30:00 PM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
hi Anne glad to see you joining the circus.
im-skeptical said…
kook at the facts
- OK. Tell me what these facts are.

when they had the faction fight with atheism plus plus (only ideologies have faction fights) i quoted 12 atheist leaders saying "I am worried about the future of the movement, the Movement, THE MOVEMENT!!!
- So what? If they had some "movement", it's not anything that I'm part of. As I said before, There may be movements among atheists, but atheism is not a movement. AND THAT'S A FACT.

total bull I can predict everything you are going to say
- Then go ahead and do it. Show me your amazing powers.

you have no evidence of any kind of tribalism, you are just using special pleading because the logic is exactly the same with communism
-here.
here.
here.

that's just black is write slide. all your arguments are informal fallacies
- You don't respond to the arguments I make. You just make random accusations. I don't think you understand even half of what I say.
Gary said…
Hi Joe!

Hey, I'm very much enjoying the book you recommended. Here is a quote I thought you would find interesting:

“One can no longer speak of a consensus against Johannine dependence on the Synoptics or, at least, on Mark. The reasons for the revival of interest in favor of John’s dependence are varied.”

—New Testament scholar, Raymond Brown, in his book, The Death of the Messiah (1994), p. 76

Wow. Apologists used to be able to say that the majority of scholars believed that John was an independent source. That claim can no longer be made. It is now a respectable position to believe that ALL the later Gospels were dependent on the first--->Mark! It is therefore possible that the detailed pericopes of Jesus' arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial are literary fiction, perfectly acceptable in first century Greco-Roman biographies.
Joe Hinman said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said…
Skepie you re clearly an ideologue so much so you can't even consider any argent I make, you never deal with extensions it;s always core positions. You are such an ideologue you can't even accept there could be good religion and bad religion.

I would not equate tribalism with ideology that is a mistake in concepts and it could be very misleading.
Joe Hinman said…
Gary said...
Hi Joe!

Hi Gary good to see you again

Hey, I'm very much enjoying the book you recommended. Here is a quote I thought you would find interesting:

“One can no longer speak of a consensus against Johannine dependence on the Synoptics or, at least, on Mark. The reasons for the revival of interest in favor of John’s dependence are varied.”

—New Testament scholar, Raymond Brown, in his book, The Death of the Messiah (1994), p. 76

Wow. Apologists used to be able to say that the majority of scholars believed that John was an independent source. That claim can no longer be made. It is now a respectable position to believe that ALL the later Gospels were dependent on the first--->Mark!


all the canonical Gospels are independent upon the Pre mark redaction ,They are linked through that.So in a sense none of them are independent, but then Brown says Peter cosmeticians an impeded early tradition in Passion narrative so they are not totally dependent on one tradition.

Moreover John contains a lot of material not in Mark or the synoptics, It's obvious it's not dependent upon Mark for a lot of it's content,



It is therefore possible that the detailed pericopes of Jesus' arrest, trial, crucifixion, and burial are literary fiction, perfectly acceptable in first century Greco-Roman biographies.

That does not follow at all, it's illogical. Just because John uses material that;sin Mark doesn't make it fictional.

You are makimg assertions based upon form critocal presumptions,
im-skeptical said…
You are such an ideologue you can't even accept there could be good religion and bad religion.
- The topic of this discussion has been your the Spanish Inquisition. Are you trying to tell us that that is good religion? Or that it isn't? What exactly is your point?

I would not equate tribalism with ideology that is a mistake in concepts and it could be very misleading.
- Nor would I. And I didn't. (Perhaps you should pay a little more attention to what my arguments actually say.)
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
You are such an ideologue you can't even accept there could be good religion and bad religion.
- The topic of this discussion has been your the Spanish Inquisition. Are you trying to tell us that that is good religion? Or that it isn't? What exactly is your point?


still blissfully unaware of my major argument, you haven't even thought about anything I've said,

I would not equate tribalism with ideology that is a mistake in concepts and it could be very misleading.

- Nor would I. And I didn't. (Perhaps you should pay a little more attention to what my arguments actually say.)

of course you did, you don;t even pay attention to your own words,you said:

"you have no evidence of any kind of tribalism, you are just using special pleading because the logic is exactly the same with communism"

you respond to the charge of ideology by calling it Tribalism

1/25/2018 09:38:00 PM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
you try to deny that you equate ideology with tribalism you sure as hell raised the issue of Tribalism,I din;t put this link in the board, you did! you apparenotuy equoate relogoi with tribalism.


LINK:


Part 1: Religious Tribalism – Pros and Cons

William Brackney
May 5, 2010
Section: Columns on Church and Theology
Print


Tribalism may be a logical result of a voluntary society, but it poses some serious theological and ethical concerns, Brackney writes.
Religious groups in North America often behave like tribes, Baptists in particular. It's part of the unintended results of religious freedom. It can be both useful and destructive.


A tribe is a type of kinship group that shares a common ancestor, cultural experience or some other kind of affinity. Basically, it's a group that has something in

Joe Hinman said…
I agree that some aspects of evangelicals are acting tribal but like the true ideologue you are you just put that on regional itself while my whole point was that abuse of religious ideas becomes ideological (and not to equivocate the two but Tribal as well) when we conflate politics with theology.

taking politics for theology is the problem.


but I still did not not raise the Tribalism issue,
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
still blissfully unaware of my major argument, you haven't even thought about anything I've said
- I asked you to explain what you mean, and your response is that I'm not thinking about what you said. Good explanation. But I still don't know what you meant by "good religion" and "bad religion". What was your point?

of course you did, you don;t even pay attention to your own words,you said ...
- I never equated ideology with tribalism. I said that the Inquisition was an example of religious tribalism. It was. They were the true believers rooting out the infidels. Us against them. That's tribalism. See the definition here. I didn't say tribalism was an ideology (and I challenge you so show where I did.)

you respond to the charge of ideology by calling it Tribalism
- I responded to your charge of no evidence of tribalism by showing you examples of articles that discuss the topic of religious tribalism. And then you go on to agree with what I said: "Religious groups in North America often behave like tribes." So why are you both agreeing with me and disagreeing with me? I must say, after all that, I really don't know you're trying to argue. I think you just feel a need to disagree with whatever I say.
Joe Hinman said…
you respond to the charge of ideology by calling it Tribalism
- I responded to your charge of no evidence of tribalism by showing you examples of articles that discuss the topic of religious tribalism. And then you go on to agree with what I said: "Religious groups in North America often behave like tribes." So why are you both agreeing with me and disagreeing with me? I must say, after all that, I really don't know you're trying to argue. I think you just feel a need to disagree with whatever I say.

how did Tribalism get into the discussion? I never said anything about it. You raised it so why? If you didn't think it's related to ideology why bring it in?
im-skeptical said…
how did Tribalism get into the discussion? I never said anything about it. You raised it so why? If you didn't think it's related to ideology why bring it in?
- You were making the argument that the Spanish Inquisition wasn't religious in nature. I was arguing that was religious. I said that it was religious tribalism. And then you started ranting about how I was equating ideology with tribalism. I don't know where that came from, because I never said anything like that.

Come on, Joe. You can go back and read what was said, and follow the thread of the discussion, if you want to. Instead of responding to what I say, you go off on these wild tangents. You are baffled by something you think I said, but I never said that. All you have to do is read it. That might help you to focus on what is being discussed. It would make for a more fruitful discussion.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
Joe previously:
how did Tribalism get into the discussion? I never said anything about it. You raised it so why? If you didn't think it's related to ideology why bring it in?

Skep:
- You were making the argument that the Spanish Inquisition wasn't religious in nature. I was arguing that was religious.

wow! there's not much more you could say to prove that you don't listen! This really does zero in on your ideological nature. I said above that you cannot tell the difference in good religion or bad for you religion is always bad a periori.
for you all religion is evil. That is born out here.

I said nothing about denying a religious nature I said the one factor that makes the difference in what is done with religion is tying it to the power of the crown, or to some form of temporal power, such as Presidential politics.

You have not acknowledged that argent once in this whole discussion


I said that it was religious tribalism. And then you started ranting about how I was equating ideology with tribalism. I don't know where that came from, because I never said anything like that.

you lanced that terminology in direct response to my charge that you are ideological that made think you were equating the two,


Come on, Joe. You can go back and read what was said, and follow the thread of the discussion, if you want to. Instead of responding to what I say, you go off on these wild tangents. You are baffled by something you think I said, but I never said that. All you have to do is read it. That might help you to focus on what is being discussed. It would make for a more fruitful discussion.

you have not once answered my argument that it is the political dimension of state power that makes religion go good or bad, I am going to close the topic after the next go around,so you better answer that issue,
Joe Hinman said…
here is the first useof tribalbism Ican find in teh discussion

Joe:same deal with the Spanish Inquisition it was their loyalism to the Spanish crown not their religion that motivated thehm

Skep:- It's still religious tribalism. It was about punishing heretics. It was conducted by religious authorities under the auspices of the church. Who cares if they were loyal to the crown? IT'S RELIGIOUS.


then you do three links,I ca;t open utoneof thenitiserely an allogatiom tahtmodern Southern Bapists aretibal, That is not prooflof your cliam, Youhaenoconeot of proinganaguent that woefully inadequate,

(1)your source does not define tribalism

(2) your source gives no indication of tribalism in church history

(3) your source quotes no social sciences in dealing with concepts of tribalism

(4) you have no data connection sixteenth century Spanish culture to tribalism.

(5) you have to delineate tribalism from temporal state power

(5) you have to answer the argent that of all the inquisitions in Europe only the one connected to the crown became brutal,
Joe Hinman said…
your source on tribalism makes claims that refer to social sciences but they don't document anything, they don't say a which social scientists or which studies,

I am glad to know of that site because it's a baptist site,they are all baptist clergy, yet they seem to be challenging the right wing political stance of their denomination, I am grateful to know of this site,that still doesn't prove anything.
im-skeptical said…
First, I'm sorry about the bad links. It doesn't matter, anyway. There are plenty of articles that discuss religious tribalism. And you already agree that there is religious tribalism.

I said nothing about denying a religious nature I said the one factor that makes the difference in what is done with religion is tying it to the power of the crown
- The way your point came across is that the religious aspect of it was unimportant. It was state power that was bad. You said: "Even without religious motivations state power still leads to corruption". To me, that means you are denying the religious influence of the Inquisition. Of course, you are wrong about that. I argued that it is the underlying ideology that is the problem. And for the Inquisition, that ideology was religion.

you have to answer the argent that of all the inquisitions in Europe only the one connected to the crown became brutal
- Are you denying that the church took brutal measures in France? The Spanish Inquisition has the reputation of being the worst, but that doen't mean there was no brutality in the others. You live in a fantasy world, Joe.

you have not once answered my argument that it is the political dimension of state power that makes religion go good or bad
- I have been trying to address that very question, but you don't listen, because my point doesn't agree with your thesis - so you just ignore it.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
First, I'm sorry about the bad links. It doesn't matter, anyway. There are plenty of articles that discuss religious tribalism. And you already agree that there is religious tribalism.

but I really doubt we make the same assumptions about it, That does not in anyway prove that religion is primitive or some kid of antedated or irrational way to think. Nor does it mean that all religion is always tribal.

I said nothing about denying a religious nature I said the one factor that makes the difference in what is done with religion is tying it to the power of the crown


- The way your point came across is that the religious aspect of it was unimportant.

It is unimportant in terms of why it became dictatorial and brutal.I knew your assumption was that this is the natural place religion is always heading that is a thesis you cannot support,


It was state power that was bad. You said: "Even without religious motivations state power still leads to corruption". To me, that means you are denying the religious influence of the Inquisition.

I see the religious aspects as not indigence to religion itself.

Of course, you are wrong about that. I argued that it is the underlying ideology that is the problem. And for the Inquisition, that ideology was religion.

But then you are trying to streak that into n indictment of all religion,but you still can't explain religion that lacks that aspect,

you have to answer the argent that of all the inquisitions in Europe only the one connected to the crown became brutal

- Are you denying that the church took brutal measures in France? The Spanish Inquisition has the reputation of being the worst, but that doen't mean there was no brutality in the others. You live in a fantasy world, Joe.


Of course the RCC in France was heavily tied to the monarchy, All the measures of repression they supported such as wiping out the Huguenots was tied to state power,but nnot directly to inquisition,

you have not once answered my argument that it is the political dimension of state power that makes religion go good or bad

- I have been trying to address that very question, but you don't listen, because my point doesn't agree with your thesis - so you just ignore it.

you have said nothing to indicate how you can separate the influences.you don;t distinguish between repression backed by state power and not backed by it,

you have no examples of religiosity thinking not tied to state power that sought to be repressive,most of the guys they were whipping upon such as the Cathers were also religios.

My position is that there is nothing intrinsically repressive about religions thought and religious thought has been as likely to motivate efforts against repression as to motivate repression, it;s used as an excuse for people seeking temporal power,,
im-skeptical said…
but I really doubt we make the same assumptions about it, That does not in anyway prove that religion is primitive or some kid of antedated or irrational way to think. Nor does it mean that all religion is always tribal.
- Of course, these are all your assumptions. I didn't say or imply those things. That's just you projecting your own hostility. You should pay attention to what I say.

I knew your assumption was that this is the natural place religion is always heading.
- No, Joe. If you would bother to listen to what I say, you would hear an entirely different argument.

I see the religious aspects as not indigence to religion itself.
- I don't know what that means. But here's the point. Ideologies can provide bad motivations, and when combined with the power of the state, the bad results are magnified. State power in the absence of any ideology does not lead to negative consequences.
Christianity + state power = Spanish Inquisition
Communism + state power = Soviet Russia
atheism (no ideology) + state power = Sweden (one of the least religious and best places to live).

But then you are trying to streak that into n indictment of all religion,but you still can't explain religion that lacks that aspect
- No, I'm not. I didn't say that. I didn't imply that. You should listen to what I say.

Of course the RCC in France was heavily tied to the monarchy, All the measures of repression they supported such as wiping out the Huguenots was tied to state power,but nnot directly to inquisition
- The Inquisition in France (directed by the pope) was responsible for atrocities.

you have said nothing to indicate how you can separate the influences.you don;t distinguish between repression backed by state power and not backed by it
- See my comment above. The church is responsible for lots of repression. It can do it more effectively with the support of the state.

My position is that there is nothing intrinsically repressive about religions thought and religious thought has been as likely to motivate efforts against repression as to motivate repression, it;s used as an excuse for people seeking temporal power
- My position is that I agree that religious ideology in not intrinsically bad, but it HAS BEEN the source of much repression and brutality.
Joe Hinman said…
ok fair enough, Our positions are not that far apart.

My position is that I agree that religious ideology in not intrinsically bad, but it HAS BEEN the source of much repression and brutality.

agree
Joe Hinman said…
hey Skep. want to join my tribe? all you have to do is drink this Koolaid.

Here are the most important document on the Spanish Inquisition:

here



Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch