Posted on 06/08/2005 12:26:29 AM PDT by Liberty Wins
Interesting thought, but not sure you can support that. The Hundred Years war was not particularly noted for niceness. Nor were Sudan, Vietnam and the Peloponnesian Wars all which were quite long.
We are seeing this now as our niceness and internal discord emboldens the enemy.
You raise two issues here. First our "niceness" or humanity is an absolute requirement for a successful defeat of the insurgents in Iraq. It will take time, money and human resources, but what has been ignored by most is the extent of the successes we have achieved there. As for the internal discord, that was simply political opposition that was ill timed and yes, does give the enemy reason to hold out.
I tried to outline the link between Christianity and sustenance of Europe in #43. Without repeating myself, the causality is this: if man's life (but not his freedom of will) belongs to God, then individual rights cannot be bargained away through the political process; wars must be defensive; procreation is a duty. Modernity replaced that system of thought with the view that if enough people vote for something, it's got to be right. Rights become viewed as political rights and so it becomes easy to violate them. Marriage becomes cohabitation. No fruit is owed to God, so the civilization becomes fruitless.
of human charity if not Christian charity
What prevents you from saying it is mammal charity? I am not aware of another religion, or irreligion, that postulates the duty to love one's enemies more than oneself.
In every war in the 20th Century you will find such stories, both of atrocities and of humanitarianism.
Actually, I cannot think of anything better than individual and not systemic and sanctioned charity in WWII. Even that is mostly from sentimentalized movies, like Americans singing Christmas carols with the Germans, or a Nazi saving the life of a Jewish pianist, or the completely out of character -- as any veteran would attest -- scene in Private Ryan when a Wehrmacht machine gunner is let go. The civil casualty numbers in the two world wars are known, and dramatically different. But my point is not that the Great War was all noble, but that it marked the transition from civilization to barbarity. The descent was, of course, gradual. However the Geneva convention did not say anything St. Thomas Aquinas did not say in 13 century.
Don't forget two of the most egregious Christian efforts were the Crusades and the Inquisition, both of which the Vatican apologized for.
To my knowledge, the Vatican apologized, and rightly, for the abuses but not for the movement itself. The Crusades were a defensive war, or set of wars, against Muslim expansionism. The Holy Inquisition was a way to combat heresies of professed Christians; it employed the best jurisprudence of the time to the point that common thieves in Spain would intentionally blaspheme so that they could be treated by the Inquisition and not the civil courts. We sorely need the Inquisition today, with the likes of Kerry running around, and the pederast priests.
This is a common view today, but this is barbarity. A Christian cannot put his morals on hold while he is fighting a war.
Long is relative. If you fight hard, the War is over sooner than if you fight less hard.
First our "niceness" or humanity is an absolute requirement for a successful defeat of the insurgents in Iraq.
We can be human and still not exhibit the levels of Political Correctness that we are showing in this War. We should be human, but we need to be severe with terrorists. And "insurgents" implies to me Freedom Fighters, these are mainly foreign mercenary jihadists, assisting ex-Saddam regime holdovers. They are not lawful uniformed combatants and slither into the woodwork and act like civilians between their attacks.
Given that everything you say is true, and I don't necessarily give you that, it still does not link the decline in Christianity in Europe with a decline in the population. We did agree in an earlier post that Europe has shown many progressive traits. It has a higher literacy rate than the US, lower poverty rates, no capital punishment, and generally higher medical care, and a higher concern for environmental issues. Still it has higher unemployment rates and given its overall trend toward being a welfare state, must clearly find answers to that.
I told you that the factual reasons for the lower population projections included the terrible wars and tyrannies Europe has faced together with the terrible environmental catastrophes that followed. Then of course you have a high usage of birth control and women entering professions. I sense that one of the major reasons Catholicism in particular has declined was the common knowledge of the Vatican's association with the Axis powers in pursuing antisemitism.
What prevents you from saying it is mammal charity? I am not aware of another religion, or irreligion, that postulates the duty to love one's enemies more than oneself.
That generally comes from those a lot closer to religion than to war. In all of my years in the military and in the conflicts I participated in, I never knew anyone who loved his enemy more than himself or his comrades in arms. That is just meaningless talk, no disrespect intended. Christians throughout history have engaged in more wars than any other religious group including Muslims. As mentioned earlier, the Vatican actively supported the Axis.
It's simply not true that Human rights are recognized only by Christians. Basic civilization began thousands of years before the birth of Christ, and was characterized by family first, and social group second. These family and social groups were protective of their own. The growth of these groups were in part power struggles, but certainly included a recognition of the need for protection of each other, the first human rights. As Latin America and other Christian, in particular Catholic countries have shown, human rights are frequently the victim when tyrannies take hold.
But my point is not that the Great War was all noble, but that it marked the transition from civilization to barbarity. The descent was, of course, gradual. However the Geneva convention did not say anything St. Thomas Aquinas did not say in 13 century
Hard for me to look at 15 million dead as civilized. The Crusades resulted in about 9 million killed, much of that number civilians. Throughout most wars prior to the 20th Century, it was common practice not to take prisoners. The losing side simply lost everyone. That practice was outlawed by the Geneva Convention, not the Vatican. Clearly World War II was the bloodiest with respect to civilians, but the wars that followed (Korea, Viet Nam, Balkans, Iraq) certainly were not the meat grinder of the Great War.
To my knowledge, the Vatican apologized, and rightly, for the abuses but not for the movement itself.
The point is that it was the abuses that is the issue, not the movement. It sounds as if the purpose of the inquisition and Crusades somehow justifies the atrocities they produced.
The Holy Inquisition was a way to combat heresies of professed Christians; it employed the best jurisprudence of the time to the point that common thieves in Spain would intentionally blaspheme so that they could be treated by the Inquisition and not the civil courts.
I suppose if the imams can justify the bombings of innocent women and children in the name of God, then you can justify the inquisition in the name of God. It sounds like you are not too happy with the First Amendment...
Not sure what specifically you are referring to. We have rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention to set the standards. There have been violations of both, and generally when that happens, the perpetrators are dealt with.
And "insurgents" implies to me Freedom Fighters, these are mainly foreign mercenary jihadists, assisting ex-Saddam regime holdovers. They are not lawful uniformed combatants and slither into the woodwork and act like civilians between their attacks
Calling them "insurgents" is not to give them any type of credibility. We are fighting and assisting the Iraqi forces to fight an insurgency. They may be the worst of the worst, but to not call them insurgents is to ignore reality, regardless of their origin, intent or method of operation.
I never knew anyone who loved his enemy more than himself or his comrades in arms
Of course. The ethics Christ gave us are ethics of the impossible. No one can love his enemy more than himself, just like no man can look at pretty women without a stirring of lust. The thesis is not that Christian men are perfect in charity and all non-Christians lack all morals, but that Christianity provided a necessary brake on the evil.
I do not say that the Great War or the Crusades were all pure, merely that a soldier in both was measured against a higher standard than a soldier in WWII. In fact, the Great War was the first war of moral depravity, -- the anecdote I told was meant to illustrate the last spark of humanity, which that war extinguished.
The number of casualties alone is a reflection of the scale and character of the war. The 9 million civilan dead in the Crusades must be measured against those killed in the Muslim conquest in the preceding 3 centuries. Also bear in mind that much of the Just War theory was developed following the Crusades, and one must think, in response to them.
It is true that the US tends to fight clean in the post-WWII era, but let us not forget that our adversary are all third world countries doing guerilla warfare, and the media is on their side. Besides, no one is saying that America is dying.
The Vatican's complicity with the Nazis is a fabrication. Sure, given that Germany was 50% Catholic, there was a great concern that the German Catholics not go the way of the Jews and the Gypsies, and so there was a concordat reached. At the same time the Vatican hid the Jews in its basements and at the end of the war there was nothing but praise for the Vatican coming form the Jewish community. The slander came down recently driven by the anti-catholic left, and was thoroughly debunked.
you are not too happy with the First Amendment...
My understanding of the 1st Amendment would probably differ form Larry Flynt's. However, in the context of the Inquisition, it is not an issue of freedom of conscience. One cannot hold heretical beliefs and still call himself Catholic. This is true today, and was true in the Middle Ages. The state then often imposed penalties on apostasy, which was, not antirely illogically, equated with treason. The Inquisition merely investigated who is Catholic, particularly if the apostate functioned as a priest or otherwise man of authority. Those who recanted were let go. We could all profit from such investigation today.
There's the crux of that pesky old logic problem. Have all of these things happened because Europeans have given up on organized religion, or have Europeans given up on organized religion because they have found other means of self fulfillment? Because of the strength of your religious beliefs, you have no doubt. But for most analysts without preconceived notions of God and free will (or lack thereof), the answer is not nearly so clear. After the horrors of the 20th Century with religion, and perceived peace and tranquility they have achieved since those abominable times, it could be that many would say they have not abandoned their religion; their religion abandoned them.
The thesis is not that Christian men are perfect in charity and all non-Christians lack all morals, but that Christianity provided a necessary brake on the evil.
Indeed, you will find such "brakes" taught in every religion, not just Christianity. But as with Christianity, there are enough built in loopholes to justify almost anything. Islam is certainly the current prime example. Yet, just as with Christians and their justifications of the atrocities of the Crusades and the Inquisition among other events, the Muslims believe just as firmly that the atrocities they are committing are in the name of God and justified as a defense of Islam. Shinto and Buddhism are essentially religions of peace, but did not prevent the Japanese from their atrocities in the 30s and 40s. Only when the Americans forced them to separate their religion from the state (emperor) did their country prosper.
I do not say that the Great War or the Crusades were all pure, merely that a soldier in both was measured against a higher standard than a soldier in WWII.
I think I need to see more on that standard and how it was measured. The Germans who were Christians had absolutely no regard for life, especially the Jews, in World War II. To be sure, the meat grinder of WW I produced little in the way of some higher ethical standard though. And as I mentioned to you in the last post, the wars prior to that were similar in nature in that "no quarter" was usually the order of the day.
The number of casualties alone is a reflection of the scale and character of the war.
True, but only because of the newer technologies. You can't tell me that the earlier wars wouldn't have used these weapons systems if they had them because of some sense of ethics not present in the soldiers of WW II. You know they would have.
The 9 million civilian dead in the Crusades must be measured against those killed in the Muslim conquest in the preceding 3 centuries.
Retribution in the name of God can be pretty nasty. The ends justify the means, I guess. But only if it's Christians who are working toward the ends.
I will tell you that any look at military history will reflect that today, civilized countries do in fact fight a kinder, gentler war aimed at reducing innocent deaths. This has come about because of the realization that wars are likely always going to be fought, but needn't be fought as the earlier ones were, with no regard for human life whatsoever.
You mentioned that what the Geneva Conventions came up with in 1864 was first proposed by Aquinas. I don't know if that's true or not. He certainly covered the gamut of theology and philosophy. Which brings to mind one of the distinctions he made between philosophy and belief. You are dealing with pure belief while I am more than likely dealing from a philosophical viewpoint. We are starting from different viewpoints, so obviously our conclusions will likely differ accordingly.
The Vatican's complicity with the Nazis is a fabrication. Sure, given that Germany was 50% Catholic, there was a great concern that the German Catholics not go the way of the Jews and the Gypsies, and so there was a concordat reached.
It would be helpful if the Vatican didn't continue to keep secret the documents reflecting their relationship with both the Nazis and the Fascists during that time. As for the debunking of the relationship between the Church and the Nazis, I would refer you to several books that will give you the undebunked story, including Hitler's Pope by John Cornwell, and The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany by Guenter Lewy among many other works documenting the bringing into power the Nazis, the aid to the Nazis during the war and the aid given in hiding the Nazis after the war--all orchestrated by the Church. You can deny it as a huge conspiracy, but that is a far cry from debunking.
One cannot hold heretical beliefs and still call himself Catholic.
Very true, but the real question is: "Should someone be permitted to hold heretical beliefs if he chooses"?
The Inquisition merely investigated who is Catholic, particularly if the apostate functioned as a priest or otherwise man of authority. Those who recanted were let go.
True, and those who did not recant were turned over to the authorities. Burning at the stake was the normal means of punishment. But in their Christian charity, if the offender recanted at the end, he would be strangled prior to the actual burning. All part of that measure of humanity that existed prior to the 20th Century.
The refutation of Cornwell's book is in Ronald J. Rychlak, "Hitler, The War, And The Pope". This is a summary of that work: Hitler's Pope? .
Here's a list of contemporary news items regarding Pope Pius XII's alleged "collaboration":
Of course, Cornwell himself recanted the charges he made against Pope Pius XII's conduct during the Holocaust (Bainbridge).
This is how Sobran concludes his article on the issue (Hitler’s Pope?):
[...]The charge has been refuted many times, for those who care. But Pius’s name has nevertheless remained the target of unstinting slander, often by disaffected Catholics.
Father Pierre Blet, a French priest-historian who knows the Vatican archives as well as any man alive, cites case after case on which Mr. Cornwell has ignored the evidence of Pius’s opposition to National Socialism (which he called “diabolical”) and of his efforts to help Jewish refugees. He notes that “Nazi propaganda ... portrayed Pius XII as an enemy of Germany.”
But we needn’t rely only on the archives. Pius’s saintly life is attested by the most authoritative character witness: Israel Zolli, chief rabbi of Rome during World War II.
Under the personal influence of Pius, Zolli became a Catholic. Unlike many who converted in order to escape the Germans, he deferred his formal conversion until after the war, not wanting to abandon his people during their ordeal.
But when the war ended, Zolli and his wife joined the Catholic Church, taking “Eugenio” — Pius’s Christian name — as their own baptismal name. As a priest recently remarked to me, “He must have seen Christ in Pius.”
Converting to Catholicism is a difficult step for a Jew, especially for one who holds a prominent position. And Zolli paid for it: he was widely reviled as a traitor to the Jews. One leading American rabbi even charged that he had been bribed to convert!
It’s inconceivable that Zolli would have honored Pius by taking his name if he had thought that Pius was in any way favorable to Hitler. After the war, in fact, many leading Jews praised Pius for his wartime protection and rescue efforts. One of them was a future Israeli prime minister named Golda Meir.
Another interesting read is Pius XII and the Jews by RABBI DAVID G. DALIN
Now, I did not research about the Lewy book. If it was accurate and satisfactory in 1964 when it was published, why did Cornwell feel necessary to add his own, now discredited, work?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html
http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/holocaust/Index.htm
Still, I notice that there are many (mostly Catholic) sites refuting the charges. I haven't read the books so can't really comment. As I mentioned earlier, it would be nice if the Vatican released all of the documents relating to Germany and the Nazis. There must be hundreds of thousands kept in the vaults. I'm sure they would shed much light on the issue.
I can't refute your refutation of the stories that still float around out there, but certainly it is in the Church's best interest to clear the air once and for all.
To feel more confident, I would have to read 2 or 3 of the most detailed books including Cornwells, and then the documents and books refuting those charges. Since obviously I won't do that, you have the advantage in this particular discussion. Later.
Everyone admits that Pius XII made comments about a visit of some Jewish communist, -- way before the Nazis institutionalized antisemitism, -- which sound anti-Semitic. I am sure that among millions of German Catholics some were anti-Semites and even criminally so. The overall verdict though remains that the Pope did the best anyone could have, under the circumstances.
I'll get to the main topic tomorrow, God willing.
Absolutely. The fault is pastoral and falls on the pastor. The divorce between Europe and the vicars of Christ was gradual and mutual, as the population sought other gods and the clergy first covered their heads and following Vatican II showed amazing lack of faith. But this is not what the author is arguing: the issue is not who divorced whom, but the fact that the divorce happened (or just nearly happened) and Europe is none the better for it.
you will find such "brakes" taught in every religion
But to very different extents. Only Christianity has a consistent message of duty to love one's enemy, combined with the need of constant struggle for sainthood. Other religions are either indifferent to world's suffering, like Buddhism, or view the world in us-versus-them terms as Islam.
I need to see more on that standard and how it was measured.
The standard, tough as it is, is supposed to be measured by the authority of the priest, who in Middle Ages could assign severe penalty for aberrant behavior. Indeed, by the time the 20 century rolled in, that mechanism was greatly deprecated.
We cannot speculate what would have happened is weapons of mass destruction were available in the Middle Ages. We know, however, that firearms, and even the crossbow, were considered ignoble weapons and aristocracy shunned them. Christian Europe was big on the rules of war all along; it is hard to tell the difference sometimes between a sporting event and warfare.
Jacques Barzun describes both the legalistic and the gamelike character of medieval wars as follows ("From Dawn to Decadence", pp. 226-227, embedded quote from John Keegan, "The Face of Battle", italics are Barzun's):
The endless local wars were not, as is believed, the doing of "robber barons": almost invariably they could show a legal right. When William the Conqueror crossed the Channel to make England his own, he had three substantial claims to the kingship. Land being the main form of wealth and the only source of a meager and chancy subsistence, owning more or less was not solely a question of pride and greed.War, moreover, had some civilized features -- it was a game. The rules were strict. The word of honor, courtesy between foes, the captured knight deemed a 'friend and brother' until ransomed [...] -- the full code must be observed if the accusation of foul play was to be avoided. "In 1415 the English and the French heralds watched the battle together form a high place. When the French had fled, King Henry [V] waited anxiously until the principal French herald confirmed that the English were the victors. And it was also for him to name the battle. He named it Agincourt."
I wrote an article for FR a while back. I don't stand by everything there, since my views shifted away from libertarianism, but it has some material on the ethics of warfare: Freedom and War.
today, civilized countries do in fact fight a kinder, gentler war aimed at reducing innocent deaths.
That is true, although this is the ethic that comes naturally in the kind of conflicts we saw post-1945, which are really police operations. When modernity was in a war for its life, like in WWII, disregard for civilian life was massive for all sides.
Should someone be permitted to hold heretical beliefs if he chooses?
All the Church really cared then and cares now is that the heretical beliefs are not labeled Catholic. Some theological justification for using force against heretics was offered by St. Augustine, who reasioned that after all, Christ did knock Saul of Tarsus off his horse. Nevertheless, the Church has always been queasy about using force. Typically, the convicted heretic was given over to the state, which marched him to the stake, with or without mercy strangulation. But the state considered heresy treasonous.
Let us not forget that the Inquisition caused, in this indirect manner, the death of very small percentage of people it investigated. A typical penalty was a fine, a pilgrimage, or confinement to a convent. Acquittals were common too.
The issue is not whether the Middle Ages were humane by our standards. Of course they were not -- after all, Europe today simply does not have a death penalty for any crime. Rather, the problem with today's West, in particular Europe, is the suicidal tendency, manifested in brutal wars that break out in the middle of otherwise mild-mannered and well-meaning people, in failure to procreate, fruitlessness of culture, and anemic reaction to islamization.
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks
To this day we are bearing the cost
When Byzantium Africa lost
To the barefooted caliphs
We have a special malice
Soon once more the Suez will be crossed
For a long time Pope Urban the Second
Danger to Christian pilgrims had reckoned
So declared he, -- it looks
We must fight the Seljuks
Once Alexius Comnenus beckoned
The piers are pummelled by the waves;
In a lonely field the rain
Lashes and abandoned train;
Outlaws fill the mountain caves.
Fantastic grow the evening gowns;
Agents of the Fisc pursue
Absconding tax-defaulters through
The sewers of provincial towns.
Private rites of magic send
The temple prostitutes to sleep;
All the literati keep
An imaginary friend.
Cerebrotonic Cato may
Extol the Ancient Disciplines,
But the muscle-bound Marines
Mutiny for food and pay.
Caesar's double-bed is warm
As an unimportant clerk
Writes I DO NOT LIKE MY WORK
On a pink official form.
Unendowed with wealth or pity
Little birds with scarlet legs,
Sitting on their speckled eggs,
Eye each flu-infected city.
Altogether elsewhere, vast
Herds of reindeer move across
Miles and miles of golden moss,
Silently and very fast.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Yet if you look back 50 years, Europe is a million times better off is just about any meaningful measure you can choose. That comparison simply cannot be shrugged off.
I wrote an article for FR a while back. I don't stand by everything there, since my views shifted away from libertarianism, but it has some material on the ethics of warfare: Freedom and War.
Very interesting. You may want to repost that as I'm sure most here did not see it.
We cannot speculate what would have happened is weapons of mass destruction were available in the Middle Ages. We know, however, that firearms, and even the crossbow, were considered ignoble weapons and aristocracy shunned them. Christian Europe was big on the rules of war all along; it is hard to tell the difference sometimes between a sporting event and warfare.
Don't know about the middle ages, but I know the Crusades generally used any weapon available including crossbows. Certainly after the 15th Century, all types of firearms were being developed and used. And I will certainly agree that Europeans developed the rules of war to try and civilize it to some extent. But Europeans were developing and inventing new tools for everything. Their social development as much or more than the fact that they were primarily Christians may have led to the more civilized war. But let's remember, war raged continually across Europe for decades and centuries to be sure.
That is true, although this is the ethic that comes naturally in the kind of conflicts we saw post-1945, which are really police operations. When modernity was in a war for its life, like in WWII, disregard for civilian life was massive for all sides.
I don't disagree. My point though was to counter your statement that the Great War was the turning point from civilization to barbarity, that's all. I will be happy to put up our rules of engagement today against any at any period in history.
Typically, the convicted heretic was given over to the state, which marched him to the stake, with or without mercy strangulation. But the state considered heresy treasonous.
Hopefully that's not how you would define a separation of Church and state? It's pretty clear that such separation is nominal only. How many state leaders were not Catholic? And if they were not, why should they care? This is a distinction but hardly a difference.
Let us not forget that the Inquisition caused, in this indirect manner, the death of very small percentage of people it investigated. A typical penalty was a fine, a pilgrimage, or confinement to a convent.
And all to prevent a free willed human being from thinking.
Sorry for the tardy response.
We really should be looking at least 100 years back for proper comparisons. The thesis I am defending is that Europe committed a cultural suicide at the Great War.
Except some crassly materialistic measures, the regress was remarkable by any measure meaningful to social health. Look at the divorce rate, crime rate, church attendance, percentage of families with one breadwinner, tax rate, social cohesion -- all these things went down steadily, in the past 50 years as well, but also in the past 100 years. Again, we are looking at two uniquely devastating wars, failure to repopulate, emasciated culture and Muslim takeover.
It is true that wars were common at all times, but a consistent set of rules of war was only developed in Europe by Christian thinkers and leaders. It was not developed by the Muslim; in fact the rules of combat promulgated by Prophet Mohammed in the Middle Ages were gradually abandoned, till we have suicide bombers of civilians today, although the Muslim had social development as well. Then in mid-20 century the influence of Christianity wanes in Europe, and we have the noxious fruit of WWII with the holocaust of the Jews (and many others), total war, and the A-bomb used against population centers. The jury is still out whether or not the new commitment to civility, -- developed in the military environment of third world police actions, when the West's survival is not threatened -- holds out when our military once again fights for their lives.
But there are hopeful signs in Europe. The Euroconstitution seems to be headed to the trash heap. In Spain and Italy, the Church was able to assert itself as particularly horrid civil legislation was pushed by the secular left. The reformation, -- which was a de-facto tool of secularism, -- is fractured and enfeebled, their flock seeking refuge in the apostolicity of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. All is not lost.
The separation of church and state was defined by Aquinas. It consists of this: the role of the church is salvation of souls; the role of the state is common good. Where the state works against natural law, it is not legitimate and it will collapse sooner or later; it is a Christian duty to help it collapse sooner, without initiating violence, of course. A monarch (or any elected leader) cannot work for the common good unless his conscience is informed by the Church; so while it should properly be the domain of the civil society how and by whom to be governed, the secular state that sets itself in confrontation with the religious teaching is an exercise in futility.
I assume you are referring to literacy, health care and the environment. While they may be crass, they are nonetheless important measures of the progress of the human experience. One cannot overlook these measures simply because they diminish a thesis of the decline of Europe (which may or may not be valid).
Look at the divorce rate, crime rate, church attendance, percentage of families with one breadwinner, tax rate, social cohesion -- all these things went down steadily, in the past 50 years as well, but also in the past 100 years.
Can't argue with most of that, though as for the crime rate in Europe, statistics reflect a drop from 1995 to 1999. Don't forget that drugs play a big part in the crime rates, both in Europe and in t he US. As for the rest, social cohesion is questionable. In a macro sense, the Europeans are farther from war with each other than at any time in its history. Taxes will also increase as long as Europe experiments with socialism. In countries where the employment rate declines, crime will rise. That is and has been a fact here in the US as well as any country. Has nothing to do with religion or lack thereof.
Again, we are looking at two uniquely devastating wars, failure to repopulate, emasciated culture and Muslim takeover.
I think you are combining unrelated issues to create a preconceived outcome. The Muslim takeover probably needs to be clarified. To my knowledge, no European government has succumbed to Islam. If you are referring to an increase in the overall number of Muslims in Europe, I agree. But I believe Europe, like America, does countenance freedom of religion, something most would agree with.
As for the two devastating wars, yes, as I've said, what Europe has become today is in part a product of those two experiences as well as the two tyrannies perpetrated on those people. Today, security and peace are number one with Europeans and who can blame them?
It is true that wars were common at all times, but a consistent set of rules of war was only developed in Europe by Christian thinkers and leaders. It was not developed by the Muslim; in fact the rules of combat promulgated by Prophet Mohammed in the Middle Ages were gradually abandoned, till we have suicide bombers of civilians today, although the Muslim had social development as well.
Remember, the Geneva Convention of 1864 established rules of war, but that did not prevent Hitler from exterminating 6 million Jews, nor did it prevent the atomic bombing of Japan or the firebombing of Germany. All of this was done by Christian nations. I don't argue that Christian values played a role in the civilizing process of Europeans, but it seems if you are correct that in the mid 20th Century that Christianity began a slow decline in Europe, it appears to have had little long term impact on the rules of war. Islam had its rules of war too, and appears to have been corrupted to create the threat to the civilized world that Islam is today, including the suicide bombers.
Then in mid-20 century the influence of Christianity wanes in Europe, and we have the noxious fruit of WWII with the holocaust of the Jews (and many others), total war, and the A-bomb used against population centers.
As I indicated above, Christianity should have had at least a little staying power to prevent such atrocities, but apparently didn't. As for the premature announcement of the death of Christianity, it should be noted that in 1900 Christianity boasted 555 million and 32% of the world's population. In 2000 it boasted 2 billion and 31% of the world's population. Now if it's declining in Europe, it is nonetheless the most populous religion in the world. Where is it having the effects you desire...Asia, Africa?
The jury is still out whether or not the new commitment to civility, -- developed in the military environment of third world police actions, when the West's survival is not threatened -- holds out when our military once again fights for their lives.
Throughout the history of warfare, the losing side (ie: the side fighting for its life) will resort to anything to survive. As I indicated earlier, I will be happy to provide numerous examples of atrocities on every side to demonstrate that war itself creates the potential for atrocity. Religion helps, but is no guarantee of civilized fighting. The rules of war were created by governments more influenced by progressive enlightenment than by Christian indoctrination.
But there are hopeful signs in Europe. The Euroconstitution seems to be headed to the trash heap.
That may prove to be the disaster Europe is fighting to avert. I don't know enough about the proposed constitution, but I do know that a unified Europe will be far less of a danger to the world than the Europe that has dominated the history of war for over a thousand years.
In Spain and Italy, the Church was able to assert itself as particularly horrid civil legislation was pushed by the secular left.
Spain's flirtation with socialism may be short lived, but Italy's problems are far more profound centering of course of its current economic condition and splintered political organization.
The reformation, -- which was a de-facto tool of secularism, -- is fractured and enfeebled, their flock seeking refuge in the apostolicity of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. All is not lost.
Wasn't the Reformation a revolt against the tyranny of the Church?
Where the state works against natural law, it is not legitimate and it will collapse sooner or later; it is a Christian duty to help it collapse sooner, without initiating violence, of course.
Christians have never had an aversion to either violence or the captivity of a free mind. Why should Christians feel hesitant to use violence now?
The separation of church and state was defined by Aquinas.
The only problem you have here is that St. Thomas Aquinas was not one of the founding fathers and his definition has no basis in purpose of the First Amendment separation clause, which simply placed our government in a position of neutrality with respect to religion.
A monarch (or any elected leader) cannot work for the common good unless his conscience is informed by the Church; so while it should properly be the domain of the civil society how and by whom to be governed, the secular state that sets itself in confrontation with the religious teaching is an exercise in futility.
You seem to have created a non sequitur. It cannot be in the domain of civil society how and by whom it is governed, if such government is to be itself governed by a church.
You cannot have free will if your core beliefs are dictated by others. Every dictator and tyranny in history believed he knew the correct form of government more than the governed. The Church is not in any danger...except the danger that it no longer influences and controls governments. That is the purview of we the people.
You say that the social well-being is unrelated to religion and mention how some economic factors affect components of the social well-being index. But we need to look into human motivations, and they are driven by human consciousness, which is driven, even if negatively, by religion. As I mentioned earlier, a woman's decision to go to work in order to buy a second car, rather than to stay home and have another child, is a function of her spirituality (or lack thereof). That creates the economic climate where unemployment is higher than necessary, drugs are relatively socially acceptable, and higher crime rate ensues. But religion would tell the husband and wife that deliberate childnessness is sinful, adultery, divorce, and serial marriage are inacceptable, the second car is a trivial goal, hedonism (=philosophy of drug use) is destructive, etc. It all comes to values.
The muslim takeover cannot be denied: it is the only growing segment, with strong internal cohesion, sharp differential in values (in many ways, theirs are superior to ours) and a strong claim on the public space. Soon minarets will replace church spires all across Europe. Sure, it is all sort of voluntary, -- for the most part, the Muslim immigration is legal and the culturally-neutral legal environment is the product of the democratic process. Which is my point: the cultural suicide is a product of Europe's collective will.
Regarding the historical effects of Christianity, two things must be noted. First, the moderating effect Christian ethics had on warfare lasted at least since the Crusades and till the 20th century. The Geneva convention is a culmination of this moderating process, not a single event onto itself. The movement away from Christianity lasted for about a century, and the phenomenon of total war resulted in WWII. While we don't have a truly threatening war yet, the total war mentality is still with us: we don't hesitate to bomb bridges, radio stations or restaurants when we think it gives a military advantage. Second, while national apostasy can be quick, the bulding of institutions takes a long time. It is too early to expect those institutions to take hold in Asia in Africa, where Christianity remains a minority religion and often a persecuted one.
The Reformation's initial impulse was, on balance, good. Luther did point out some serious abuse, which thanks to him was corrected. However, the Reformation's lasting effect was fracturing Christiandom and establishment of national churches, which allowed secularism to succeed and was wholly deleterious.
It is true that the social teaching of the Catholic Church on the distinct roles of church and state predates and is not wholly conformant with the spirit of the American Constitution. The problem is indeed in the preamble "We the People". This redirects the flow of individual rights from God to Man, replacing is with the flow of rights from Man to Man. After 2 centuries of this experimentation we see that the Constitution remains immutable only in the areas where the ruling elite likes it that way. The unalienable (that is, God-given) right of self government, property, and self-defense has been replaced with conditional political rights, because of "We the People". Just today the court (properly installed and assembled as the Constitution of We the People prescribes) decreed that private property is conditional on the town's economic planning authority. The local law, on the other hand, no matter how firmly established by the local voter, can be overwritten from Washington with ease. Private ownership of certain firearms, gold, alcohol, or marijuana patches have all been banned at one time or another. At the same time, things that have nothing to do with rights are claimed as rights, and vigorously enforced by the state, at a great social cost -- witness the abortion regime, the social security ponzi schemes, or pornography's claim on the freedom of speech. We the People have fallen far since the Middle Ages.
Not so. All I have done is question your direct linkage without any substantive events or facts to substantiate that linkage. I have demonstrated the facts of where Europe is today, but have not attempted to link it to anything other than a historical background that could not but have had some significant impact.
But we need to look into human motivations, and they are driven by human consciousness, which is driven, even if negatively, by religion.
I agree completely, only because religion has been such an important part of almost every culture. But remember, that includes every kind of religion, not just Christianity and certainly not just Catholicism.
As I mentioned earlier, a woman's decision to go to work in order to buy a second car, rather than to stay home and have another child, is a function of her spirituality (or lack thereof).
This is where your thesis breaks down. Why is this a function of her spirituality rather than simply her desire or need for material things. All materialism is not anti-religious. And all anti-religious motivations are not based on materialism. You have built this hypothesis without any foundation.
That creates the economic climate where unemployment is higher than necessary, drugs are relatively socially acceptable, and higher crime rate ensues.
Again I would challenge you to support this statement with respect to a woman's decision to go to work. How does that increase unemployment? It's only true if the increased numbers of workers exceed the economic growth of the nation. A simple question of labor supply and demand. As for drugs and higher crime, true these certainly relate to a nation's moral fiber, but again may simply be parallel issues.
But religion would tell the husband and wife that deliberate childnessness is sinful, adultery, divorce, and serial marriage are inacceptable, the second car is a trivial goal, hedonism (=philosophy of drug use) is destructive, etc. It all comes to values.
This statement alone could support its own thread. In any case, Religion would be in complete competition with technology and an economic environment. Growth demands labor. If a country refuses to grow because of its "value" system dominated by a theocratic-ally based set of laws, that country would devolve into anarchy or revolution. You would be pitting religion against legitimate secularism. For religion to succeed in a free world, it must evolve with civilization (without compromising its core values). It must form a synergy with the people under a secular government or it will simply vanish.
I would suggest that these values (Man works, woman stays home and has children) do not play well in Africa. Aids, starvation, wars are more a function of geography, history, and a set of values that will take much more than contemporary Catholicism to correct. Don't tell those people to use the rhythm method...
Muslim immigration is legal and the culturally-neutral legal environment is the product of the democratic process. Which is my point: the cultural suicide is a product of Europe's collective will.
A couple of points. First, it's no less of a problem here, just not as pronounced yet. It will come to be unless fundamentalist Muslims are defeated. Their goals are simply to get the West out of the Middle East and Central Asia first. They want the oil, so they can produce the weapons to destroy infidels everywhere. Islam is to be the only religion. They will, if permitted, continue with what was started in the 8th Century. All that having been said, to attempt to set up Christianity as the bulwark is simply to continue the crusades, and it will not work in today's democratic world. Finally, the cultural suicide you refer to has a much better chance of succeeding without free thinking, not with a forced Christian base. As any true Muslim will tell you, control of the thinking processes is essential to success. Christianity functions in much the same way.
irst, the moderating effect Christian ethics had on warfare lasted at least since the Crusades and till the 20th century.
Again, I would say that prior to the Geneva Convention of 1864, there were simply no rules of war or of handling POWs. Generally they were simply slaughtered. I seek any evidence of what you say. I can give you many many examples of the horrors of war throughout history. Europeans may have been a little less inclined to kill everything around it (though the Scots might disagree), but in general Europeans were more enlightened than other parts of the world. You can show a parallel of religion with that enlightenment, but you may have difficulty showing a cause and effect. In fact the reverse may be true. The enlightenment may have led to a growth of Christianity.
The Reformation's initial impulse was, on balance, good. Luther did point out some serious abuse, which thanks to him was corrected. However, the Reformation's lasting effect was fracturing Christendom and establishment of national churches, which allowed secularism to succeed and was wholly deleterious.
But that's my point. Was religion responsible for an enlightened society or was the enlightened society accepting of religion? It was, after all, an enlightened society that was responsible for the Reformation. And today, there are I imagine well over a thousand Christian sects. The growth of these can only be linked to a growth in the free thinking of human nature. You see why Christianity and more specifically Catholicism can never go back to the control it once had. It simply cannot work as it wants with democracy.
The problem is indeed in the preamble "We the People". This redirects the flow of individual rights from God to Man, replacing is with the flow of rights from Man to Man.
I hope that's not true. What you are saying is that if people are politically free, then there can be no place for God. I don't accept that thesis. God created everything in the universe. Why could he not in his wisdom create a free people?
The unalienable (that is, God-given) right of self government, property, and self-defense has been replaced with conditional political rights, because of "We the People"
But it continues to be "we the people" who permit this evolution of the Constitution. But it has been going on since Washington was president. The Adams/Jefferson fights were over this very thing...the change in our national values from those of the Revolution. But our government attempts to stay up with the changing culture of our nation. And it does change. Perhaps our values don't or shouldn't change, but in fact they do. Our Constitution was created to permit freedoms to succeed or fail. Today the government insists on success and will do everything necessary to ensure that success. Yet it is "we the people" who have accepted this dramatic change in the mission of our government, and in the reading of our Constitution.
he local law, on the other hand, no matter how firmly established by the local voter, can be overwritten from Washington with ease. Private ownership of certain firearms, gold, alcohol, or marijuana patches have all been banned at one time or another. At the same time, things that have nothing to do with rights are claimed as rights, and vigorously enforced by the state, at a great social cost -- witness the abortion regime, the social security ponzi schemes, or pornography's claim on the freedom of speech. We the People have fallen far since the Middle Ages.
I can't disagree with you on much here, with the possible exception of the last sentence. There was much in the Middle Ages to fear. Many of the values had little to do with the advancement, feeding, health and well being of mankind. The Church wanted only souls and political power. It cared not a hoot for the welfare of humanity, which ultimately led to its demise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.