Its all religion's fault...

[Wolfman]

One of the goals of both Christians and Muslims is to convert others to their way of thinking. Christians and Muslims make up the vast majority of the world’s religious. Some Christians and Muslims can live with people thinking other than they do. But their scripture tells them to go out and convert. That means that for most religious people, their way of thinking is right, and everyone else’s is wrong. Not just wrong, but going to hell wrong. Not just going to hell wrong, but going to hell forever wrong.

I agree 100% that there are some forms of religion that, it could be argued, teach prejudice, intolerance, etc. That is not the question. The question, to me, is "Is it an innate characteristic that religion will teach prejudice and intolerance?". And, from my arguments above, the answer very obviously is no. In fact, one could easily make the argument that religion could actually be more effective at promoting human rights, equality, etc. than atheism could ever be. Simply create a religion that teaches these things, and teach people that this is what God says to do. People would follow that directive just as adamantly as they do directives to convert others, etc.

Atheists, of course, think other people are wrong, too. The difference -- there is no demand on the atheist to perform conversion. They might try, but it’s not hammered into them as part and parcel of their atheism. It’s not a life and death cosmic struggle of good against evil. They are not given intense training in the black-and-white mindset that distinguishes so much of religious training.

Here is where, in my opinion, your argument really falls apart.

I can give examples of plenty of atheist groups and movements that demand conversion. Communism would be one of the easiest and most obvious. Communism not only demands the destruction of other forms of political systems, but also demands the destruction of religion.

The arguments and perspectives (and biases) on both sides of the argument are incredibly similar.

If a particular group of atheists -- such as Social Darwinists, or Communists -- does something wrong, there are two inevitable results. Theists immediately start blaming it on atheism. And atheists immediately argue that "that wasn't because of atheism, I'm an atheist and I don't agree with or support those things".

And if a particular group of theists -- such as Crusaders or Muslim terrorists -- does something wrong, there are two inevitable results. Atheists immediately start blaming it on theism. And theists immediately argue that "that wasn't because of theism/Christianity/Islam/whatever, I'm a theist, and I don't agree with or support those things".

Theistic and atheistic systems alike can be -- and have been -- used to promote prejudice, intolerance, war, etc. Theistic and atheistic sysems alike can be -- and have been -- used to promote tolerance, peace, and equality. There are some atheistic systems -- such as Communism -- that demand just as much unquestioned obedience as does any theistic system. And there are some theistic systems that do not teach "unquestioned" obedience to a god, or to spiritual leaders.

Just saying "theism teaches such-and-such" reveals the basic ignorance of the author about what they are talking about. There is only one universal belief/teaching of theism, that is that some form of god exists. Beyond that, you have an almost limitless range of believes, moral systems, etc. There is absolutely no "theistic" belief, beyond the basic belief that a god exists, that can be extended to be implicit in every form of religious belief.

Just saying "atheism teaches such-and-such" suffers from exactly the same problem. There is only one universal belief/teaching of atheism, that is that no god exists. Communists are no less atheistic than Humanists. There is absolutely no "atheistic" belief, beyond the basic belief that no god exists, that can be extended to be implicit in every atheistic system.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Communism isn't an atheist group. There are no atheist dogma or rules. There might be atheists that get together for a common goal, but that has nothing to do with atheism. Think of it like this. Belief in a god is theism. However, religion is the set system of belief that supports the belief in a god and also dictates behavior and acts to people. Atheism is the lack of all of that.

 

[Wolfman]

Communism isn't an atheist group. There are no atheist dogma or rules. There might be atheists that get together for a common goal, but that has nothing to do with atheism. Think of it like this. Belief in a god is theism. However, religion is the set system of belief that supports the belief in a god and also dictates behavior and acts to people. Atheism is the lack of all of that.

Wrong.

And wrong.

One of the most basic precepts of Communism is the belief in atheism. Communism is a fundamentally atheistic belief system. Communism calls actively for the destruction of religion, and believes as a basic part of its philosophy that the 'ideal' society will have no religion. (And thank you very, very much for illustrating my point about how atheists will react)

And religion does not implicitly "dictate the behavior and acts of people", no moreso than any other system or belief. Can you tell me any basic teaching that is common to all religions, except that a god exists? "You must obey your god unquestioningly"? Sorry, not all religions teach that. "Your religion is right, all others are wrong"? Sorry, not all religions teach that.

A nation's laws also "dictate the behavior and acts of people". That can be a good thing (if the laws are good). It can be a bad thing (if the laws are bad). But that doesn't mean that having laws is in and of itself bad, because it attempts to "dictate the behavior and acts of people". Atheistic societies of ANY form will still have laws that "dictate the behavior and acts" of those within its society.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

In fact, one could easily make the argument that religion could actually be more effective at promoting human rights, equality, etc. than atheism could ever be. Simply create a religion that teaches these things, and teach people that this is what God says to do. People would follow that directive just as adamantly as they do directives to convert others, etc.

So religion can influence innate behavior, yes? It’s not necessarily true that people will behave the same with or without religion. Do we agree on that?

At any rate, here’s the bottom line for me. You are looking at: “Is it an innate characteristic that religion will teach prejudice and intolerance?”

I agree that there are too many religions of too great a variety to say “yes.”

However, I’m looking at: “Are the bulk of modern religious adherents taught prejudicial philosophies?”

Put that way, I think my arguments still hold water.

(As a minor nitpick, there are small-scale examples of religious communism, such as Christian communists, religious kibbutzim in Israel, and others. My understanding is that hardcore state-sponsored communist atheism was a byproduct of the need to control large, diverse populations. It’s more a way of suppressing religion than promoting an actual philosophical stance. But admittedly, I’m a little out of my depth here.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Can you tell me any basic teaching that is common to all religions, except that a god exists?

And Buddhism doesn't teach even that, which is why every English language book on introductions to Buddhism will ask the question, "Is Buddhism really a religion?" It sure looks like one, but there's no God.

 

[thaiboxerken]

One of the most basic precepts of Communism is the belief in atheism. Communism is a fundamentally atheistic belief system. Communism calls actively for the destruction of religion, and believes as a basic part of its philosophy that the 'ideal' society will have no religion. (And thank you very, very much for illustrating my point about how atheists will react)

Communism calls for all kinds of strange behavior. Atheism does not. Religion also calls for all kinds of strange behavior as well.

And religion does not implicitly "dictate the behavior and acts of people", no moreso than any other system or belief.

You are correct. However, atheism is neither a system or a belief.

Can you tell me any basic teaching that is common to all religions, except that a god exists? "You must obey your god unquestioningly"? Sorry, not all religions teach that. "Your religion is right, all others are wrong"? Sorry, not all religions teach that.

Almost all religions teach to obey their god unquestioningly and exclusivity. Those that don't teach these traits are small both in population and power.

A nation's laws also "dictate the behavior and acts of people". That can be a good thing (if the laws are good). It can be a bad thing (if the laws are bad). But that doesn't mean that having laws is in and of itself bad, because it attempts to "dictate the behavior and acts of people". Atheistic societies of ANY form will still have laws that "dictate the behavior and acts" of those within its society.

the difference between laws and religion is that laws can be changed by the people (in a democracy). religions don't change except by "divine" intervention, which happens to be dictated to those in power.

 

[CapelDodger]

One of the most basic precepts of Communism is the belief in atheism. Communism is a fundamentally atheistic belief system. Communism calls actively for the destruction of religion, and believes as a basic part of its philosophy that the 'ideal' society will have no religion.

It's necessary to distinguish between theories of Communism (Marxism), a social organisation, and Revolution (Leninism), the route to that social organisation. Communist theory is based on reason, so neither religion nor atheism enter into it. Religion being regarded as a tool and buttress of the social orders that Communism is to replace, it (and atheism) do enter into Revolutionary theories.

A rather brutal summation, but I hope it makes my point .

 

[CapelDodger]

Sixtus IV realized almost immediately that he had made a mistake by consenting to Ferdinand's pet project ...

At the time, Ferdinand's pet project was the conquest of Granada, not achieved until 1492. The Inquisition (an existing concept) was only introduced by the Pope with the strict proviso that the Inqusitors be appointed by Ferdinand's Court. Doesn't that sound more like the Vatican making concessions to further their pet project?

... but he was unable to do much about it.

Concessions have often been regretted.

He and his successors tried frequently over the years, by bulls and various other tactics, to put a stop to the Inquisition's practices, to reform it, to take control of it, to shut parts of it down - but the monarchs either laughed it off or bullied the papacy into backing away.

Consistent with the Papacy's pet project being subverted.

It's hard to imagine a pope thinking of the Spanish Inquisition as being secretly to his benefit.

Even when wielded against Protestantism? The Inquisition was created as a weapon against the anti-Papal Albigensians, an earlier analogy.

After all, it was always operated for the benefit of royal power, and any pope of the period could see that whatever was good for Ferdinand, Charles, and company was generally bad for the papacy.

Do what now? Philip's fanatical Catholic obsession with physically crushing Protestantism in England, the Nederlands and anywhere else it's Hell-inspired hereticism raised its head? The Vatican opposed that? Did it ally with France, the credible Catholic anti-Hapsburg power?

The Spanish Inquisition was almost universally unappreciated outside Spain - and Rome was no exception.

It wasn't what the Vatican wanted. It's often the case that making concessions to further a pet project neuters the beast in the process. Just consider the UN, or Kyoto.

 

[kcdad]

My take on this is that you take God or the omnipotent all being out of the
equation, people will still ways to diversify and divide people according to ethnic groups and such.

The best example is actully my own country, Denmark, which as many observers have note, is the most godlike or secular contry in Europe (not in the sense of followers of the faith, but in the sense of the secular orientation). I have had to defend individual muslims, africans, afro-americans, on various debate boards on the internet, since the take on these people are that they are not as intelligent as white people, more prone to terror than other people and such things. (this is not the place to discuss whether or not this is correct, I just mention to show that people will find other explanations as to why people are inferior to other people = god does not need to bee in the equation at all).

Of course, religion is not the CAUSE of war, religion can be used to justify why people go to war over say certain fields or pieces of land or to justify why e.g. slavery is good or bad, or all those things of which religion has be accused of doing. Certain people in religion, like the priests in the Spanish
Inquisition, did to harm to other people in the name of religion, they did hunt down heretics in the name of God. :whine: . And sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church.

To, me it is the people who decides which way each religion should be acted out, either in a bad way or a good way.

While I won't argue about "christian" hegemony or atrocities like the inquisition, I would point out that most skeptics are quick to poiint out faults with christianity while ignoring or even praising the same actions by other religions... the same "inquisitions" have occurred in Islam, Judaism and Hinduism and probably ever other religion or socio-political way of thinking. How is the purge of the Catholic Church any different than Hitler's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's, Amin's, blah blah blah...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Ohh witty.


Given the fact that you no nothing, nada, zip , zero, nichts, noll, squat about which creed I abide by.

Say I saw a nice nice jump-to-conclusion-matt in a movie once.
Do you want one?

edit.
Or do you already have one?

1. I don't care about your creed, whatever it is or isn't. Your creed's details are irrelevant to the general uselessness of "the blame game."

2. The rest of your post wandered into pointless drivel. That you don't seem to understand the difference between motivation and creed suggests to me that you did not understand my reply.

DR

 

[ceo_esq]

The Inquisition (an existing concept) was only introduced by the Pope with the strict proviso that the Inqusitors be appointed by Ferdinand's Court. Doesn't that sound more like the Vatican making concessions to further their pet project?

If by that you mean that Pope Sixtus was successfully persuaded (initially) that this new Inquisition would further the general aims of the existing papal Inquisitions, then probably yes. But there doesn't seem to me that that was an agenda the Vatican would have formulated and pursued on its own initiative. There was already a papal Inquisition in Aragon that had virtually nothing to do all day. Castile hadn't had one, but nothing suggests that the popes were independently concerned that the ordinary diocesan courts there were not doing the job. It was Ferdinand who successfully petitioned the pope for a bull establishing the Spanish Inquisition. Less than a generation earlier, Henry IV of Castile had asked the then-pope (Pius? I can't recall) to establish an Inquisition in the region and been turned down.

There's no question that agitation against the conversos was a major element in the establishment of the tribunal, and it was mostly directed against them (whether for religious or other motives). By all outward indications, though, this is something the papacy would not have wanted much to do with, except under external pressure and persuasion. Not too many years prior to the Spanish Inquisition, Pope Nicholas had already promulgated a bull intended to protect Spanish conversos against discrimination.

Concessions have often been regretted.

Well, sure. People in a position to extract them keep extracting them, though.

Consistent with the Papacy's pet project being subverted.

Well, whether a papal pet project was at issue or not, clearly the Vatican's expectation of what Ferdinand was going to do with his new tribunal was overturned.

Even when wielded against Protestantism? The Inquisition was created as a weapon against the anti-Papal Albigensians, an earlier analogy.

Yet that can't have been a pressing worry for the papacy when it granted the Inquisition sought by Ferdinand. And even thereafter, this was was a relatively small concern for religious authorities in Spain. In discussing "the astonishing inability of Protestant ideas to penetrate the peninsula", Kamen notes that 16th-century Spain "had not since the early Middle Ages experienced a single significant popular heresy" and was infertile ground for Protestantism. The presence of the royal Inquisition no doubt had some role to play in that, but the number of cases of even alleged Protestantism to arise in Spain during the Inquisition was small. The notion of a Spanish Protestant menace doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would convince the Vatican that the pros of the royal Inquisition outweighed the cons.

Also, it wasn't only that the Vatican objected to the fact that the royal Inquisition was going after conversos. The Vatican had an (apparently principled) objection to the exceptional unfairness and severity of the royal Inquisition's judicial (and extrajudicial) methods, and that objection applied regardless of whether a converso or a suspected Protestant was on trial.

Do what now? Philip's fanatical Catholic obsession with physically crushing Protestantism in England, the Nederlands and anywhere else it's Hell-inspired hereticism raised its head? The Vatican opposed that? Did it ally with France, the credible Catholic anti-Hapsburg power?

I shouldn't have implied that the interests of the papacy on the other hand, and Ferdinand & Co. on the other, were necessarily at odds in every context. I was thinking of the context of influence over the Church. The Spanish monarchs used the royal Inquisition to consolidate their power, including (among many other things) their power over the Spanish church at the expense of the Vatican, and I think this would probably have been apparent to virtually any pope of the time. There were many power struggles between them over just such issues.

It wasn't what the Vatican wanted. It's often the case that making concessions to further a pet project neuters the beast in the process. Just consider the UN, or Kyoto.

I think that by and large the concessions, and there were a number of them over time, were not made in order to further any particular Vatican agenda. I find it easier to believe - since I'm aware of some instances where the record clearly suggests that this was the case - that they were usually made in the face of royal threats and warnings from Spain to back down. I'm not sure that any specific papal project served by the Spanish Inquisition would provide enough of an incentive to make large concessions (in an ends-justifying-the-means sort of way). I have no trouble believing, though, that Ferdinand initially managed to convince Sixtus that the situation on the ground in Spain was such that the best interests of the faith and the faithful (a general papal priority, certainly) warranted the establishment of a new tribunal.

 

[CapelDodger]

If by that you mean that Pope Sixtus was successfully persuaded (initially) that this new Inquisition would further the general aims of the existing papal Inquisitions, then probably yes.

I'm more inclined to the view that Sixtus regarded the exisiting Inquisitions, which were pretty moribund, as a potentially useful tool of direct Vatican power within a Church that was showing signs of fractiousness. The Castilian Inquisition (you are, of course, quite right to draw the distinction; there was no "Spain" at the time, even the Spanish Empire was technically the Castilian Empire) would be the first re-invigorating step. Like Reagan invading Grenada. (OK, that is obscure, what the hell am I on today ?)

But there doesn't seem to me that that was an agenda the Vatican would have formulated and pursued on its own initiative. There was already a papal Inquisition in Aragon that had virtually nothing to do all day. Castile hadn't had one, but nothing suggests that the popes were independently concerned that the ordinary diocesan courts there were not doing the job.

The granting of the SI bull does suggest something like that.

It was Ferdinand who successfully petitioned the pope for a bull establishing the Spanish Inquisition.

He was hardly likely to grant one without being petitioned, in the circumstances pertaining. What persuaded Ferdinand to make the petition? An Afghan government asked the Soviets to intervene, after all.

Less than a generation earlier, Henry IV of Castile had asked the then-pope (Pius? I can't recall) to establish an Inquisition in the region and been turned down.

So there'd clearly been a change in the Vatican's attitude in the meantime.

Not too many years prior to the Spanish Inquisition, Pope Nicholas had already promulgated a bull intended to protect Spanish conversos against discrimination.

New Pope, new policy. All this has to be considered against the backdrop of the Reconquesta, which was both a feudal/dynastic exercise and a Crusade. The political outcome was not certain, the only arguable precedent being the kingdoms in the Holy Land - where Papal power lost out to the brute force of the dynasts, and anyway that whole adventure was best forgotten.

Well, whether a papal pet project was at issue or not, clearly the Vatican's expectation of what Ferdinand was going to do with his new tribunal was overturned.

It certainly didn't pan out the way the Vatican wanted, but prediction is terribly difficult, especially about the future . Even I have made plans that didn't come out the way I intended.

Yet [Protestantism] can't have been a pressing worry for the papacy when it granted the Inquisition sought by Ferdinand.

Discontent within the Church was already evident, and would lead to Protestantism. The Inquisition as a direct papal tool separate from the episcopal structure would appeal to a certain type of Pope and associated Curia, in the circumstances. So did the Templars, under other circumstances, and we know what happened to them. Protestantism as we now know it wasn't the Vatican's concern at the time, nor was it ever in Iberia. Difference and dissent were the concerns. Difference as in non-Christian and dissent within the Church. Which dissent, of course, tended to be less tolerant of non-Christians than the Vatican. So an element of pandering cannot be dismissed.

I shouldn't have implied that the interests of the papacy on the other hand, and Ferdinand & Co. on the other, were necessarily at odds in every context.

It did leave you wide open .

I was thinking of the context of influence over the Church. The Spanish monarchs used the royal Inquisition to consolidate their power, including (among many other things) their power over the Spanish church at the expense of the Vatican, and I think this would probably have been apparent to virtually any pope of the time. There were many power struggles between them over just such issues.

I'm thinking of the context in which the Spanish Inquisition was founded. That Vatican, that Empire, that Church, that peninsula, that state of the wider Mediterranean world, and so on. The Vatican position in favour of conversion, with some reasonable latitude and in an atmosphere of trust, was soon reinstated. The Vatican as protector, not persecutor, of Jews was reinstated. That can't say anything about Sixtus's motives and expectations at the time. Any more than the next US President's policy on Iraq can say anything about Rove's or Cheney's motives and expectations.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have read very little of "Mein Kampf", but by coincidence I was browsing it in a local bookstore the other day.

In a section on anti-semitism, Hitler said that the big mistake made by previous anti-semites was to base their anti-semitism on religious grounds. The proper reason for anti-semitism was to oppose them on racial grounds, totally independent of their religion.

Funnily enough, the Catholic attitude was that racial anti-semitism was the mistake, religious anti-semitism being the righteous kind. See Unholy War by David Kertzer (if you haven't already).

The objection was that these people, with all of their hideous faults, were not really Germans at all, and yet, people acted as if they were. They were able to claim German citizenship just because they were born in Germany, which he saw as wrong.

A result of nationalist theory, which holds that a nation is defined by an ethnic identity (among other things) and that devotion to nation is the highest form of devotion.

Of course, had their been no religion, there would have been no history of anti-semitism, and it seems inconceivable that the Jews would have remained distinct from their surrounding ethnic groups without their religion.

Conceivable, but highly unlikely in a European context. Ethnic diversity has had a very different history in the East.

 

[ceo_esq]

The granting of the SI bull does suggest something like that.

If it had been issued by Rome sua sponte, as I understand at least some of the papal inquisitions were established, the I'd agree. Under the circumstances, I'd suggest that it was more a response to Ferdinand's concerns than to independent papal ones.

He was hardly likely to grant one without being petitioned, in the circumstances pertaining. What persuaded Ferdinand to make the petition? An Afghan government asked the Soviets to intervene, after all.

Sixtus was unlikely to issue such a bull against Ferdinand's wishes, but if the pope had been pursuing his own projects rather than being caught up in royal ones, it seems to me that the initiative for the bull could have been taken by Rome.

Homefront agitation against the conversos had to be a major factor in Ferdinand's decision, but I will look into it further.

So there'd clearly been a change in the Vatican's attitude in the meantime.

Not necessarily. The most significant change could have been in who was doing the asking (Henry "the Impotent" in the former instance; Ferdinand in the latter). That said, it does seem likely to me that Ferdinand persuaded Rome that the facts on the ground had changed, which could plausibly prompt a tactical change even in the absence of a real shift in the Vatican's fundamental attitudes or goals.

New Pope, new policy.

But which of Sixtus' actions indicate that he meant to depart from his predecessor's view on the rights of conversos? I don't think we can necessarily read that into the initial SI bull.

Discontent within the Church was already evident, and would lead to Protestantism. The Inquisition as a direct papal tool separate from the episcopal structure would appeal to a certain type of Pope and associated Curia, in the circumstances. So did the Templars, under other circumstances, and we know what happened to them. Protestantism as we now know it wasn't the Vatican's concern at the time, nor was it ever in Iberia. Difference and dissent were the concerns. Difference as in non-Christian and dissent within the Church. Which dissent, of course, tended to be less tolerant of non-Christians than the Vatican. So an element of pandering cannot be dismissed.

Fair enough.

 

[CapelDodger]

If it had been issued by Rome sua sponte, as I understand at least some of the papal inquisitions were established, the I'd agree. Under the circumstances, I'd suggest that it was more a response to Ferdinand's concerns than to independent papal ones.

The sua sponte were issued in very different political circumstances. States and empires were less developed, and the contest between secular and spiritual ascendancy was undecided. Ferdinand - and, through him, the Hapsburg Empire - could not accept the Vatican making such a blatantly political intervention in Iberia. Even had it been essentially to Ferdinand's liking. The contest had been decided by then, in favour of the worldly powers. If the Vatican (or some influential faction of it) favoured a Castilian Inquisition they would have to get Ferdinand to ask for it. Sua sponte is irrelevant.

Henry's request for a Castilian Inquisition was turned down, so it clearly wasn't prompted by the Vatican. Ferdinand's, on the other hand, was granted. With extraordinary concessions. That suggests, to me, that Ferdinand was approached with the idea, not that he was in some way a supplicant. If Ferdinand was so keen, why the "only if" quality to proceedings? And why the concessions when Henry was rebuffed outright?

That's the way my thinking goes, anyway.

Sixtus was unlikely to issue such a bull against Ferdinand's wishes, but if the pope had been pursuing his own projects rather than being caught up in royal ones, it seems to me that the initiative for the bull could have been taken by Rome.

I'm arguing that it was. Get Ferdinand to ask for it, whatever provisos he demands.

Homefront agitation against the conversos had to be a major factor in Ferdinand's decision, but I will look into it further.

Local politics were a maelstrom. The long process of Reconquesta meant that military feudalism survived far longer in Spain than elsewhere in Western Europe. This was further fuelled by the influx of those who regretted its passing elsewhere, on the back of a Crusade. Along with fire-breathing clerics. Not people that were terribly welcome to families who'd done their conquering some generations back and now had things ticking over nicely, thank you. Muslims working the land very productively as they had done for so long, Muslims and Jews as business partners and doctors and artists and cooks ... what they didn't need were thuggo-Christians stirring things up, but they just kept coming.

That's the historical setting Ferdinand had to work with. Very fractious - economically, politically, militarily and religiously. Ferdinand and Isabella weren't going to chart a course through it by themselves.

Not necessarily. The most significant change could have been in who was doing the asking (Henry "the Impotent" in the former instance; Ferdinand in the latter).

Good point. But how much more potent was Ferdinand, in real terms? What could he threaten the Vatican with if they didn't concede him an Inquisition on his terms? Or bribe them with? His political position wasn't so sound that he'd blithely consider pissing off the Pope.

That said, it does seem likely to me that Ferdinand persuaded Rome that the facts on the ground had changed, which could plausibly prompt a tactical change even in the absence of a real shift in the Vatican's fundamental attitudes or goals.

The Catholic Church had known the facts on the ground in Western Europe better than anybody else for centuries. Their network was second-to-none, well-honed, and co-ordinated by an excellent Chancellery They weren't going to be persuaded of Spain's realities by Ferdinand's Court, which was hardly the most sophisticated organ Christendom had ever encountered.

But which of Sixtus' actions indicate that he meant to depart from his predecessor's view on the rights of conversos? I don't think we can necessarily read that into the initial SI bull.

Neither do I. I think his concerns were much wider.The Spanish Inquisition wasn't the objective per se, it was meant to reinvigorate the whole concept of Inquisition as a weapon against heresy. Not against conversos.

Fair enough.

I wonder : does everybody else drop off a thread we're on because they're agog, or because we're not confrontational enough to be interesting?

 

[ceo_esq]

The sua sponte were issued in very different political circumstances. States and empires were less developed, and the contest between secular and spiritual ascendancy was undecided. Ferdinand - and, through him, the Hapsburg Empire - could not accept the Vatican making such a blatantly political intervention in Iberia. Even had it been essentially to Ferdinand's liking. The contest had been decided by then, in favour of the worldly powers. If the Vatican (or some influential faction of it) favoured a Castilian Inquisition they would have to get Ferdinand to ask for it. Sua sponte is irrelevant.

Henry's request for a Castilian Inquisition was turned down, so it clearly wasn't prompted by the Vatican. Ferdinand's, on the other hand, was granted. With extraordinary concessions. That suggests, to me, that Ferdinand was approached with the idea, not that he was in some way a supplicant.

Based on what we've talked about so far, that's not a preposterous inference. But is there anything in the record indicating that the real initiative was Rome's?

Good point. But how much more potent was Ferdinand, in real terms? What could he threaten the Vatican with if they didn't concede him an Inquisition on his terms? Or bribe them with? His political position wasn't so sound that he'd blithely consider pissing off the Pope.

Well, whether or not that was true in 1478, it seems not to have been the case in 1482. You'll recall that in that year Sixtus issued a bull criticizing the Spanish Inquisition, accusing it of various abuses and injustices, and ordering the diocesan bishops to step in and ensure that Ferdinand's tribunal respect the Church's procedural fairness norms. He suggested that those carrying out the Inquisition were motivated by greed rather than faith. Ferdinand responded by more or less nakedly accusing the pope of acting on bribes from the conversos and conveying a barely-veiled threat:

Things have been told me, Holy Father, which, if true, would seem to merit the greatest astonishment ... To these rumors, however, we have given no credence because they seem to be things which would in no way have been conceded by Your Holiness who has a duty to the Inquisition. But if by chance concessions have been made through the persistent and cunning persuasion of the conversos, I intend never to let them take effect. Take care therefore not to let the matter go further, and to revoke any concessions and entrust us with the care of this question.

(Emphasis mine. I imagine the italicized portion being spoken in Darth Vader's voice. )

If Ferdinand wasn't carrying a much bigger stick than Henry had, he appears to have had Sixtus fooled. At any rate, the pope blinked. He backed down and withdrew the offending bull, under circumstances that I presume must have involved losing considerable face.

I wonder : does everybody else drop off a thread we're on because they're agog, or because we're not confrontational enough to be interesting?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wonder : does everybody else drop off a thread we're on because they're agog, or because we're not confrontational enough to be interesting?

You guys rock. Play on.

DR

 

[CapelDodger]

Based on what we've talked about so far, that's not a preposterous inference. But is there anything in the record indicating that the real initiative was Rome's?

There'd be no paper-trail if I'd been running things back then. Get out of that! The less evidence there is, the higher the cover-up must go ... I love that line of argument.

I don't know of any recorded evidence, the scenario just works for me. Since we've been discussing this I've started wondering about a hard-line purist faction within the Church being behind things. Sixtus may have been part of that faction to some extent, or manipulated by it. You mentioned an attempted reverse take-over of the Church by clerics associated with the SI or in sympathy with its views, which sparks up my mental conspiracy-centre. It merits investigation, I think.

Well, whether or not that was true in 1478, it seems not to have been the case in 1482. You'll recall that in that year Sixtus issued a bull criticizing the Spanish Inquisition, accusing it of various abuses and injustices, and ordering the diocesan bishops to step in and ensure that Ferdinand's tribunal respect the Church's procedural fairness norms. He suggested that those carrying out the Inquisition were motivated by greed rather than faith. Ferdinand responded by more or less nakedly accusing the pope of acting on bribes from the conversos and conveying a barely-veiled threat ...

(Emphasis mine. I imagine the italicized portion being spoken in Darth Vader's voice. )

I can see that. I also think of "Don't make me angry ... You wouldn't like me when I'm angry ..."

Ferdinand certainly liked what he got - fines and confiscations (on commission, of course, thus Sixtus's reference to greed) and something to scare the nobility with. The differences between 1478 and 1482 are four years - a long time in politics, especially in Ferdinand's day - and the fact that he was stopping Papal action rather than forcing it. He'd have more local political support for that (since it represented Papal interference in Spain) than he would have for slapping the Pope for not doing what he was told. His opponents would have labelled the latter as gratuitously damaging to Spanish interests, not to mention tyrannical and hubristic.

If Ferdinand wasn't carrying a much bigger stick than Henry had, he appears to have had Sixtus fooled. At any rate, the pope blinked. He backed down and withdrew the offending bull, under circumstances that I presume must have involved losing considerable face.

It certainly went wrong very quickly, from the Vatican's point of view. Sixtus must have felt worse off, not better, if he was appealing to the Spanish bishops, given that the concept of Grand Inquisition was meant to supercede episcopalean responsibility for combatting heresy. He certainly was worse off after he'd backed down. (Had anybody forced the withdrawal of a bull before?) Either somebody had manipulated him and his Curia or he made an almighty cock-up.

 

[aries]

Not unless we can agree on what "reason" means. To Christians, it means accepting the authority of Christ. To skeptics it means belief based on evidence. To Pagans, it means accepting whatever myth you choose as your standard.

You probably know which one I favor, but I know that people define it different ways, so just saying "dominated by reason" would appeal to everyone, provided it was their variety of "reason".

As a Christian myself --- no, it doesn't. Maybe to American Evangelists this means that - accepting the authorithy of Christ. I'm getting pretty tired of
people from the US thinking that their Evengelists represents all of the Christians of this world, as I know they do NOT do that.

Personally, I like to go by evidence 6 days a week, then believe or have faith on Sundays. But then again, I'm also a European Christian...and my interpretation of the Bible is certainly different from that of the fundamental
Evangelical Momements.

I have my own private beliefs, thank you very much, and there isn't anyone who is going to tell me how I'm to read the Bible. This is in fact, keeping in good tradition with Luther's view on the subject.

 

[aries]

Funny how people will credit religion when it encourages good behavior and peace but will absolutely refuse to blame religion when it starts wars.

From my point of view, religion doesn't start any wars. People start wars, because they want to gain more status, add more land to the one they
have already, or go to war over resources such as gold, oil, silver, diamonds.

I'm pretty sure that to legitimize that the Blood Diamond war in Africa a few years back, certain African leaders did make use of religion, either the natural religion or Islam or Christianity. When Milosovics attacked Kosova, he did it for the gold, silver and cobber mines in the Kosovanian mountains. And he legitimized it by using nationalist as well as religius rhetoric.

All conflicts between humans or between states, be it about land, resources etc. can be legitimized by the use of religion. The use of religion then fuels
people's perception of the other people involved in the conflict --- but the underlining conflict is NOT one of religion, it is one of getting the resources,
either they are gold, silver or land.