Gingrich Says New Religious Wars Are A Good Idea
Ronald Bailey | May 21, 2007, 10:21am
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.
grylliade | May 21, 2007, 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.
grylliade | May 21, 2007, 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.
Grotius | May 21, 2007, 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.
