Tradition betrayed

[Florestan]

I meant that the economic growth, the rise of the middle classes and the political reforms in 18th - 19th Century France and England & the huge influence from the metropolises of the day (Paris and London in particular) were necessarily a more important part of the inspiration for political reforms in Germany, than a papal paper from 1891.
Another factor was Bismarck´s establishing of a strong coherent democratic state and improved trade conditions as well as public wellfare much earlier than 1891 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck.

I was specifically talking about post-WWII Germany: a defeated and ruined country. It was not 18th and 19th century English and French Liberalism and much less Bismarck's conservatism that turned its economy into the most prosperous and competitive in Europe but Christian-Democracy, of which Rerum Novarum (an encyclical, not a paper - the difference is enormous) is an integral part. The same applies to Italy.

Bruno was not burned alive due to his personality traits, the official reason was heresy, and his books not placed in the papal list of forbidden books in 1600 (the same year that he was burned) for that reason either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

I can only agree that Copernicus received some support from Catholic dignitaries, but some say that the delay of the publication of "De Revolutionibus" was fear of the church authorities. The heliocentric model was not debated for 60 years due to fear of heresy, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
and met very strong opposition from Luther and Calvin. In 1616 the book was included in the papal list of forbidden books, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Galileo spent the later part of his life in house arrest after having been condemned for heresy.

None of these true facts invalidate my former comment.

[71 dB]

Your prejudices continue to blind you on this point, but religion can be (and historically has been) a driver for promoting human rights.

You just MUST disagree with me, don't you? More often than not religion hasn't been used to promote human rights. It has been used to promote the priviledges of the clergy.

Promoting something asks for power. The clergy has it.

[Karl Henning]

You just MUST disagree with me, don't you?

The facts disagree with you.  And if you make bigoted remarks, you should expect to be called on them.  Bigotry doesn't magically become a virtue, because the object of the bigotry is religion.

[DieNacht]

I was specifically talking about post-WWII Germany: a defeated and ruined country. It was not 18th and 19th century English and French Liberalism and much less Bismarck's conservatism that turned its economy into the most prosperous and competitive in Europe but Christian-Democracy, of which Rerum Novarum (an encyclical, not a paper - the difference is enormous) is an integral part. The same applies to Italy.

I don´t see how the link - a papal encyclical from 1891 and the development of post WW II Germany - can be an important one. So much happened in between, to say the least.  The "De Rerum" seems to be a defense against demands from the growing forces of the left and it seems very vague politically, acknowledging some rights for the workers and that´s about it.

Bismarck is called one of the founders of a modern state model, including minimal wellfare principles.

The Marshall Plan and the support of the Western powers against the Eastern Block is usually seen as an important factor in the development of post-war Germany economy.

The German Social Democratic Party SPD was one of the earlier such parties in Europe and played an important part in German policy, from 1949 it was one of the two largest political parties in the country, either in government or as a rival to the CDU.

Social reforms in Germany were not the result of pressure from the church but from the working classes.

As regards Italy, I don´t know enough about the situation there, but the strong secular movements there such as the communist movement no doubt contributed to the promotion of social equality, and the most backward regions were also some of the most religiously fervent and conservative, like it was the case in Spain.

[Karl Henning]

Karl:  I happily acknowledge that that part of the post was poorly phrased, and admit with a bit of embarrassment that I was on auto-pilot by that point.

I must say how a post like this stands out, in a thread where a number of people are apt to lard their readiness to disagree with unbecoming rancor, for its grace and tolerance. Thank you.

[kishnevi]

You just MUST disagree with me, don't you? More often than not religion hasn't been used to promote human rights. It has been used to promote the priviledges of the clergy.

Promoting something asks for power. The clergy has it.

The clergy have used it to promote their privileges.  Non clergy, motivated by religious convictions, have used it to promote the reverse of privilege.  And sometimes clergy have joined them.  I presume the name Martin Luther King is familiar to you; he's an instance of the latter.

BTW, the very fact that you aren't forced to adhere to a state-mandated religion is due in large part to religious people.  In the Anglo-American context, at least, the idea that the state should have no role in religion was first developed by the early Baptists--you know, the intellectual ancestors of Jerry Falwell, etc.  They were interested in the idea because it would have left them free to worship and believe as they wished, without being forced to adhere to an establishment religion such as the Church of England--and they understood that situation would also mean they had to give up the possibility of forcing other people to adhere to their form of religion.  The Enlightenment thinkers followed in their steps on this point.

[kishnevi]

Religions existed for some thousand years before the abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world and most social reform movements of the 19th century (i.e., religion doesn't seem to be the determining factor in those developments)

Abolition was powered by people who acted based on their religious beliefs. The fact that religions people accepted slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years does not invalidate that.  When abolition started, it was religiously motivated people who started it.    Non religious motivation had almost no role to play until the movement was well under way, and even then it still maintained its fundamental position in the movement.  So, yes, religion was the determining factor.

[DieNacht]

There are other views on this
http://www.historytoday.com/robin-blackburn/anti-slavery-and-french-revolution

[Karl Henning]

There are other views on this

That's an interesting incipit. I should call that episode a supplement to, rather than any refutation of, Jeffrey's points.

[71 dB]

The facts disagree with you.  And if you make bigoted remarks, you should expect to be called on them.  Bigotry doesn't magically become a virtue, because the object of the bigotry is religion.

I don't think the facts are against me, just think about the sale of indulgences and the suppression of women.

My remarks are not bigoted. I am not planning to harm anyone. I am not prohibiting religion, just telling about the negative aspects of it.

[Karl Henning]

I don't think the facts are against me, just think about the sale of indulgences and the suppression of women.

Let's think about them.  The discussion was on the matter of human rights, and you've confused the matter by the question of indulgences. I.e., since your purpose here is not to discuss with an open mind, but to denigrate religion, you're just slinging any mud to hand.

As to the question of women's rights, to allude to a more temperate participant in this discussion, the question is more complicated and more interesting than you are implying here.

My remarks are not bigoted. I am not planning to harm anyone. I am not prohibiting religion, just telling about the negative aspects of it.

Part of the reason why you are blind to your bigotry is encoded here.  You mistakenly believe that intent to harm, or being in a position of prohibitive power, is some sort of precondition for bigotry. It isn't.  The bloke who doesn't actively harm anyone, but who just thinks that religious people as a class are incapable of free thought, is a bigot.

[71 dB]

Let's think about them.  The discussion was on the matter of human rights, and you've confused the matter by the question of indulgences. I.e., since your purpose here is not to discuss with an open mind, but to denigrate religion, you're just slinging any mud to hand.

The question of indulgences is connected to how people are teached to see the world. If people are made to believe there is no much hope to improve their condition, they won't fight for their human rights that hard. If they fear hell, they fight even less.

See, I am not confused about what I write here. Do you still think I am against religion for nothing? Who is slinging mud?

As to the question of women's rights, to allude to a more temperate participant in this discussion, the question is more complicated and more interesting than you are implying here.[/font]

Yes it is. I agree.

Part of the reason why you are blind to your bigotry is encoded here.  You mistakenly believe that intent to harm, or being in a position of prohibitive power, is some sort of precondition for bigotry. It isn't.  The bloke who doesn't actively harm anyone, but who just thinks that religious people as a class are incapable of free thought, is a bigot.

Bigotry without power and intention to harm someone is merely a opinion expressed in a loud manner. Religion produces sometimes individuals who are capable of horrible acts but where are atheistic terrorists? Makes you thinks, doesn't it?

A religious person may be well capable of free though in many things but religion causes problems depending on how religious the person is. Luckily people are in fact quite secular in many countries but the church tries hard to maintain their power in society. If the society is that secular, we let the church have so much power?

100 years ago people didn't think smoking is harmful. Today we know better. Is it bigotry to say smoking is bad just because some stubborn individuals brainwashed by cigarette industry think the opposite?

[Iconito]

Abolition was powered by people who acted based on their religious beliefs. The fact that religions people accepted slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years does not invalidate that.  When abolition started, it was religiously motivated people who started it.    Non religious motivation had almost no role to play until the movement was well under way, and even then it still maintained its fundamental position in the movement.  So, yes, religion was the determining factor.

So religion can either inspire you to abolish slavery or let you accept slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years? That's some whimsical determining factor.
And you had also "people who acted based on their religious beliefs" opposing abolition, too... Something else must have been at play there, Jeffrey.

[DavidRoss]

As with politics, we seem to be straying (again!) into a subject area notable for the sneering judgmentalism of the most closed-minded among us, those whose self-righteous sense of moral and intellectual superiority precludes the possibility of their learning anything while simultaneously betraying their mistaken belief in their own rationality.

[jowcol]

So religion can either inspire you to abolish slavery or let you accept slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years? That's some whimsical determining factor.
And you had also "people who acted based on their religious beliefs" opposing abolition, too... Something else must have been at play there, Jeffrey.

'
Or maybe there is the mind bending concept that all religious people may not act and think the same. Maybe not all religions, or sects within a different faith are the same.    (For religion, we could substitute "conservatives" or "liberals"   or any other blanket term we'd care to use.)

If you look at the American Civil war, many of the northern abolitionists WERE religiously motivated, but the Southern Baptists broke off from the main Baptist Church since they did not condemn slavery, and waiting more than 100 years to offer a half baked apology. .    Much of the ignorance, prejudice, and butchery in the 20th century has been able to find other excuses-- take a look at Stalin's regime or Pol Pot.  I don't see much value of a human life  in either of them.

[Iconito]

'
Or maybe there is the mind bending concept that all religious people may not act and think the same. Maybe not all religions, or sects within a different faith are the same.    (For religion, we could substitute "conservatives" or "liberals"   or any other blanket term we'd care to use.)

If you look at the American Civil war, many of the northern abolitionists WERE religiously motivated, but the Southern Baptists broke off from the main Baptist Church since they did not condemn slavery, and waiting more than 100 years to offer a half baked apology. .    Much of the ignorance, prejudice, and butchery in the 20th century has been able to find other excuses-- take a look at Stalin's regime or Pol Pot.  I don't see much value of a human life  in either of them.

That's all good (and consistent with my own views), but then don't claim the abolition of slavery was a triumph of Religion when you had Religion on both sides of the issue (plus an 1800 years delay, according to Jeffrey) It's quite evident other factors were at play.

[jowcol]

That's all good (and consistent with my own views), but then don't claim the abolition of slavery was a triumph of Religion when you had Religion on both sides of the issue (plus an 1800 years delay, according to Jeffrey) It's quite evident other factors were at play.

Agreed.  Blaming religion alone for slavery would be an equally flawed premise.  Or most of the other horrible things humans seem to enjoy so much.

[Karl Henning]

Strawman.  It is not necessary to claim abolition as "a triumph of Religion" in order to cite abolition as (in part) a positive impact of Religion upon human rights.

On the other hand, it is naïve fondly to imagine that the "other factors" are hermetically separable from Religion.  Let's say it again:  it is not simply that Christianity is an element of Western social and intellectual life, over time it became the foundation, the framework, the mindset.

There are Other Factors which emerge from Western society, because the intellectual tradition of Christianity furnished the environment.

To quote Ben Franklin (Poor Richard, indeed): Praise-All and Blame-All are both Blockheads.

[DavidRoss]

Strawman.  It is not necessary to claim abolition as "a triumph of Religion" in order to cite abolition as (in part) a positive impact of Religion upon human rights.

On the other hand, it is naïve fondly to imagine that the "other factors" are hermetically separable from Religion.  Let's say it again:  it is not simply that Christianity is an element of Western social and intellectual life, over time it became the foundation, the framework, the mindset.

There are Other Factors which emerge from Western society, because the intellectual tradition of Christianity furnished the environment.

To quote Ben Franklin (Poor Richard, indeed): Praise-All and Blame-All are both Blockheads.

QFT, word, hear, hear, etc. 

[Florestan]

QFT, word, hear, hear, etc. 

Aye!