And you have to concede that if certain trends become 'normative.' then that ipso facto defines the religion as a whole.
For example: Some of the things you speak of did "define" the official pronouncements of the powers-that-were in, say, the Roman Catholic Church at the time of Galileo, or the Inquisition. Cardinal Ximenez, for example, was commissioned specifically BY THE POPE HIMSELF, to prosecute the Inquisition, and the "trial" of Galileo took place in the Vatican.
I think that we should differentiate between religion and church. To me, the former is a system of beliefs, whereas the latter is a social institution promalgating those beliefs. With this distinction in mind, observe how everything falls into place. I would cocede to the following statement: "if certain trends become 'normative,', then that ipso facto defines the church. The above-quoted example you give now works wonders. And it should: we know an entity by its actions, and this is true for a social insitution such as church. As you point out, the actions of the Catholic Church at the time you mention were (i) extensive and consistent, and (ii) authorized from the top. We are justified, therefore, to conclude that they represented the essense of the Church at the time.
Has the Church contraditicted the religion, wavered from it, or was, as it claimed, in line with the teachings? That's the problematic part: we don't really know what the religion actually says. All of the holy books, in all religions, are fairly allegoric. Which gave the Church the "right" to burn Jordano Bruno at the stake and, at the same time, gives us the "right" to disagree with that position. This very vagueness gave Papacy the right to sell indulgences and, at the same time, gave the right to Martin Luther to rebel against that practice as a Christian. In other words, the ambiguities of religion allow the church to contradict itself. That is, to say one thing in one century and something quite opposite in another. All the while promulgating the purpotedly same religion.
You may have seen my other posts, where I argue that we are at war with the "Islamic church" rather than Islam. In complete similarity with your example, the narrowminded support of evil by the Arab sheiks (I always remember that Turks are Muslim too but do not fall into this category) is (i) widespread and consistent, and (ii) goes all the way to the "top," i.e., leading sheiks. Thus, we are justified in saying that it is the essense of the Islamic church today.
We are not, and should not be, at war with Islam the religion. The "Islamic church" of tomorrow may be very different than the one today, just as the Catholic Church does not authorize autodafe any longer. Incidentally, Islamic church in al Andalus, the Moorish Spain, was a model of peaceful coexistence of Islam, Chritians, Jews, and pagans. So the "Islamic church" of yesterday was also different from the one we see today. Needless to say, the religions as represented by the Koran and the Bible, repsectively, remained the same.
Thus, the desinction between the church and the religion itself seems to give a unified and internally consistent view of both the past and the present.
What do you think of this?
That sounds fine in theory but such distinctions are often subtle to say the least.
For example, for many centuries after the rise of the Christian religion in Europe, even though there were other, even older sects of Christianity (such as the Copts and the Eastern Orthodox), Roman Catholicism was widely acknowledged by those who had influence to be THE CHURCH, encapsulating Christianity.
It took more than a millenium before any serious challenge to that concept came forward, with the Reformation, and still even today you have a tacit acknowledgement by folks like the Archbishop of Canterbury, that the See of Roman is preeminent.
During that period, "the Church (meaning the Roman Church)" and "Christendom" were considered synonymous in the minds of those people who lived and wrote with great influence on generations that came after them. Thus, it was very, very hard to distinguish between "religion" and "church" except to a comparative few.
OTOH, you have Islam which it seems to me has always been highly decentralized, venerating "places" only symbolically (Mecca the CITY, not the SEAT of Islam, is what they bow down to pray toward). It is interesting to read some of the websites that Muslims themselves have set up to discuss their religion. They seem to have only in the last few centuries, "fractured" enough to begin to argue in the same sectarian way the Christians have been doing for five hundred years (or longer if you count some of the "heresies" such as the Albeghensians (sp) that only just missed becoming bona fide SECTS due to their reliance on charismatic leaders who were swiftly killed by the Establishment).
And one of the BIGGEST arguments, at least according to my own inquiries into the matter, seem to turn on the question of "what is PURE Islam?"
Sound familiar?