RoR: Forum

This article strikes me as rather hysterical. Who is it who wants to establish a religious theocracy, for example?

The author tells us that that: "In the Dark Ages, a prosecutor would submerge the defendant's arms in boiling water, and if the scalded flesh became infected, that was taken as a sign of God's disfavor, mandating a guilty verdict."

Now, I know next to nothing about criminal procedure in the Middle Ages, but I did an internet search on the subject. In 10 seconds I found this:

"English law in the Middle Ages evolved due process for defendants much more slowly than did continental law. If Bellamy had speculated on the differences between the procedural protections offered defendants in the Ius commune and those offered to defendants in English courts, the results might have been interesting. To take one example. English courts did not permit witnesses to testify for defendants in crimes of felony or treason until the sixteenth century. In contrast, the rules of procedure of the continental Ius commune gave the defendant an absolute right to defend himself in court and to present witnesses on his behalf since the end of the thirteenth century."

I assume things are a little more complex than the author makes them.

Post 1

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 6:04am

As always, yes :)
If I remember it right, the French law was even further ahead in these issues than the law of let's say the Holy Roman Empire (= Germany). It is always a generalisation that comes into those articles (Rand did the same in her articles.). However, towards the end of the Dark Ages (it is a matter of definition of the Dark Ages and how long it is) the english courts closed in on the European courts and after the French revolution, the courts on the continent were not much worth any more ;)

Post 2

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 6:39am

Good article...I like this quote - "No, the "people of faith" are not calling for a Christian theocracy--yet. For now, they simply want to establish religious faith on an equal footing with reason as a legitimate method of governmental decision-making. But if they succeed in this, the eventual emergence of government by clergy is all but assured."

They do not need to go straight for a theocracy, this is a battle done in stages.

One leg of this stealth strategy :
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special
http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/

Post 3

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 8:24am

Neil, how dare you question the word of an ARI article! Their word is as if Ayn Rand herself was speaking (at least until they print a retraction like they did with the Tsunami story). Speaking of intrincicism, the secular Nancy Pelosi said in opposing a proposed law withholding federal funds from any municipality that tried to use the Kelo decsion to take private property;

"It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision."

The Left has their own Gods; judicial activism, environmentalism, political correctness, affirmative action, etc. Throw in the fact that they're weaker on fighting terrorism, and the greater threat to our future on the courts, or for elective office becomes clear.

Post 4

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 11:10am

I am doing anti-Right Wing Fundamentalist political activism work. From my perspective, the article is highly accurate. The thing to be careful about, though, is to understand that this is not the work of "People of Faith". That is a mega-term. The rotten core that spearheads this and related activities is the Fundamentalist Right Wing. Their leaders use the term "People of Faith" in a very underhanded way, for specific purposes. The people to focus directly on are the militant, Right Wing Fundamentalists (in other words, business as usual worldwide). No need for killing other religious folks with friendly fire.

That slant in the article is typical ARI- the stroke is too broad. They do not account for or mention the fact that there are a lot of pissed-off religious people out there when it comes to this. I will once again point to work by organizations such as The Christian Alliance (www.christianalliance.org). They have a nice little movie worth checking out over at the website.

Other than that, yeah- this is serious business at hand.

Post 5

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 7:05pm

Rich, "amen." Sanctions atcha.

You got it right: the truly dire threat comes from religious fundamentalists--not the nominally religious, not those who interpret their faith-based creeds as blueprints to social benevolence. The fundamentalists are those mindless fanatics who hate life on earth, believe in sacrifices to their gods and are eager to immolate anyone who stands in the way of their doctrines and gurus. It is that fanatical mindset--what Eric Hoffer called "the True Believer"--that can be found in any ideological or religious group, and is the real enemy that all civilized people must fight.

Post 6

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 4:06am

We all should know that the Dark Ages were dark mostly due to the Islamic grip on Southern and Eastern Europe.

The ARI and other Objectivist centers sometimes display an antifaith hysteria that is very typical, precisely, of the blind faith believers.

Best wishes,

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 7/09, 4:07am)

Post 7

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 5:07am

Would any of you be thinking of

BORN AGAIN, CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST, GEORGE BUSH?

Post 8

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 7:10am

Sharon: "Would any of you be thinking of BORN AGAIN, CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST, GEORGE BUSH?"

I try not to think of him. Perish the thought.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/09, 8:53am)

Post 9

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 11:08am

Is Bush really a Christian fundamentalist? Just a few weeks ago, he was saying that atheists are good Americans. That's doesn't sound like a funddie to me. He said, "I view religion as a personal matter." Hmmm. Is that a slogan of the Moral Majority headed by what's-his-name? He is clearly a devout Christian but he doesn't cite scripture to end arguments; he gives reasons. Perhaps, living in New York City, I haven't met this species - Christian Fundamentalist - and I'm not the best judge. What am I missing?

Post 10

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 11:59am

Joel,

"We all should know that the Dark Ages were dark mostly due to the Islamic grip on Southern and Eastern Europe." No we don't, because it is false.

The Dark Ages are dated either from emperor Justinian's prohibition of the teaching of philosophy in 529 CE, or from the burning of all public libraries in Christendom by Christian mobs - including the final burning of the Library of Alexandria in 389 CE - after emperor Theodosius withdrew the protection of the law from collections containing "pagan" art works and writings.

Islam started with Mohammed's "hegira," in 622 CE, a century after Justinian and two centuries after Theodosius.

On the other hand, it is only thanks to the Islamic conquest of North Africa and Spain that the intellectuals of those countries could study Aristotle outside the reach of Justinian's prohibition. They included Maimonides, without whom the work of Thomas Aquinas, and Europe's eventual emergence from the Dark Ages, would have been impossible.

Joel, I am becoming tired of correcting your errors.

Post 11

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 1:32pm

Jason: Is Bush really a Christian fundamentalist? Just a few weeks ago, he was saying that atheists are good Americans. That's doesn't sound like a funddie to me. He said, "I view religion as a personal matter." Hmmm. Is that a slogan of the Moral Majority headed by what's-his-name? He is clearly a devout Christian but he doesn't cite scripture to end arguments; he gives reasons. Perhaps, living in New York City, I haven't met this species - Christian Fundamentalist - and I'm not the best judge. What am I missing?

It doesn't matter if he said that atheists are good Americans. Of course he did, he's a fucking politician. What's left out there is that if he was called on it by the RWF'ers (who he is entangled with bigtime), he can pivot and tell them that sure, he said that. You know, they mean well, they're just confused. All the more reason to show them The Way.

As far as what you're missing, well....where to begin? Take your basic Fundamentalist- any kind, any sect. Same thing, just very whitebread American looking. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, those kind of fun-loving party animals. They seem to really like the blue suits, red ties. Wing tips- those are big. They take the Bible (such as it is) on full face value. God wrote it. Adam and Eve and the snake were the real deal (vs. one of dozens of common myths like that worldwide- apparently these guys don't get the whole collective unconscious thing and clearly never read Joseph Campbell). They think hatred is a family value (they hate homos).

Bush was initially a Methodist (those are like Baptists, but they can read). He definitely is a Born Again Xstian, if he's anything. He got into quite a row with his mommy over this a couple of times. Even if he wasn't, it's his alliances that matter, and he's snuggled in with all the RWF'er dorkos. These are dangerous people. They have excellent organizational skills. I find their level of transgressions to be proportional to how much righteous spew they put out. Go check out Dobson's Focus on the Family site, or something like that. You'll figure out pretty fast what fucks they are.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 7/09, 1:42pm)

Post 12

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 5:26pm

Adam,

What proof do you have that Christians "destroyed all public libraries" or that Justinian prohibited the reading of Aristotle?

Post 13

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 5:31pm

We all should know that the Dark Ages were dark mostly due to the Islamic grip on Southern and Eastern Europe.

This is the established view of many European experts, and good source for it is the historian Henri Pirenne. The trade channels controlled by the Mohammedans from the South and Scandinavians from the North left most of Europe widely impoverished.

Here's the alternative account to Adam Reed's story:

----------
The following major trading ports fell to Mohammedans:

Syria in 638, Egypt in 642 and the whole of North Africa by 689. Mohammedans seized more key points over the next 300 years. With the Norwegians fighting in the North, trade routes to Britain etc. were blocked.

However, after revolts in parts of what is now Italy and the Crusades, the Mohammedans were driven back. This lead to a revival of trade and the cultural reemergence of Western Europe.
----------

I state all the above knowing that I'm in no mood to seriously defend it if defending it means that I will argue its veracity by debating more historical accounts - I am only presenting this view point for the education of those who have never heard of it. I'm not an expert in history, and I have my reservations about strenuously debating historical accounts.

I've learned the hard way that history is ideology for most individuals - you can choose to believe whatever account you want to believe and the account you choose to believe will have at most a marginal effect on your personal effectiveness in practical issues. Individuals can agree that the same events occurred but argue that the main cause for this or that situation is whatever plausible event they choose. I personally have found the trade view more plausible than the religious view, but I can understand how those who believe religion is the source of most evil and is opposed to reason would believe other accounts.

Arguing over history is simply not worth the time when all the debate amounts to is "I am right and you are wrong because I say so and authors I like say so."

On the other hand, if there are serious, testable implications with which we can decide the debate, I will gladly respond to anyone who provides such.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 14

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 7:07pm

For an account of Christian actions, read THE CLOSING OF THE WESTERN MIND, by Charles Freeman...

Post 15

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 10:18pm

Neil,

For Theodosius, see http://www.vinland.org/scamp/grove/kreich/chapter4.html.

For Justinian, see http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012420.html.

Or better, learn to use Google.

Post 16

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 10:41pm

Laj,

You will find that Marxist historians limit their explanations to economics, since traditional Marxism denies the causal efficacy of ideas. But by the time the trade routes were broken, civilized culture in Europe had already undergone centuries of decline. The loss of half of Christendom to the Moslems, and of most of the rest to Northern barbarians, was itself a consequence of the loss of technology, including military technology, in the burning of the libraries. Without a technological advantage there was no practical way to defend the borders of the Empire.

For a good pre-Marxist account of the relevant histories, read Gibbon, or Gibbon-based accounts on the Web.

Post 17

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 12:08am

There's a lot in this article that I find wrong or inappropriate.

"a basic principle of American government: the separation of church and state" is simply not true. Reading through the Federalist and Antifederalist papers will show that the words of the first amendment should be read literaly, not interpreted. Unless what is meant here is "a basic principle as some people today think it should be" rather than "a basic principle when it was established".

The interpretation given "the literal truth of holy scripture (... displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses)" is ridiculous. The two concepts have nothing to do with each other. Further, harkening back to basic American government, why are the 10 commandments OK in the federal supreme court but not OK in state courts?

As to "Centuries of history demonstrate that faith-based governments spawn persecution, torture, and endless bloody warfare.", I think that a short look at the history of faith-hostile governments in the 20th century will show an even more dismal situation. These claimed to be rational or even scientific in approach, and 10's of millions died. Perhaps "Today's religionists may insist that this time will be different", but so do today's rationalists.

Not that Objectivist philosophy supports communism, Marxism or socialism, but the US was not founded as an objectivist state.

The assertion "Since faith entails overriding reason in favor of emotion, religious disputes are necessarily unresolvable through rational persuasion" is not fully supportable, but I wish to simply note my disagreement for today. It's a longer discussion and only a side issue to the article.

And I'm sure I'll have future opportunities to discuss the issues in the penultimate paragraph.

Post 18

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 12:53am

David,

The term "wall of separation between church and state" comes from Jefferson's own notes on why he wrote the bill of rights. It is the author's own statement of his "original intent" in writing the First Amendment.

Similar "wall of separation" constitutional provisions have been very effective in preventing religious warfare in several European republics, beginning with the Constitution of 1510 in the Polish Commonwealth, then in Switzerland and eventually, after the death of hundreds of thousands in religious wars, in France.

Of course secular government is not a sufficient guarantee of individual rights, but it is a necessary one. There has never been a religious government that respected the individual person's right to live his own life by his own judgement.

Post 19

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 2:55am