In my opinion, the greatest mistake that can ever be made when analyzing history is judging people from the past by the standards of today, rather than the cultural standards of their time. This is not to say that everything is okay, but to say that if someone is born in a society where low-grade, benign racism is the norm, are raised in that society, and live as an adult in that society, they can hardly be blamed if they end up a low-grade, benign racist.

The habit of going after historical figures for being sexist, racist, anti-Jewish, etc, despite their being no more sexist, racist, anti-Jewish, etc, than the common cultural currents of their place and time, is foolish. They should be judged according to their positions in relation to the common atmosphere of their environment.

Discuss.

I really can't entirely agree here. While it is true that historical development, circumstance, and biology all impact behavoir, that is no reason to give them a sort of carte blanche pardon in such behavoir. Instead, I would suggest taking what is worthy from past peoples and condemning what is objectionable. I am not for dismissing these civilizations and times, but insisting on a balanced view. No matter how hard one tries, I doubt I could be convinced I am being too harsh to fault the medieval church for burning people and the Greeks and Romans for owning slaves and delighting in pederastry.

Wtf, burning people and owning slaves is cool.

Medieval church burned no people. All executions were carried out by secular magistrates, and 95% of the deathsentences were imposed by secular courts, not the inquisition. Of all courts on the European continent prior to the 18th century, the canon courts were the most advancedn its magistrates the best educated and its procedure the closest to what we see today as due process. I'm not saying that they were flawless, but of all courts in those days, they were the mist humane, and not the most bloodthirsty. I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing this misconception, which is being perpetualized by marxist asshole wannabe historians.

Medieval church burned no people. All executions were carried out by secular magistrates, and 95% of the deathsentences were imposed by secular courts, not the inquisition.


This is splitting hairs but because I play fair, I won't remind you what you do for a living :p You're really defending the indefensible. The essence of the question here, I think, could this Church have people sentenced to death, and see to it that some power would carry it out? I doubt who was doing the execution made any difference to the victim, or whether the specificity of whether the law in question was one of secular or church authority, so as long as the crime was questioning the chuch's teaching (for example. Charlemagne had secular laws against certain manifestations of irreligiousity [punishable by death, incidentally]) I consider any trial (never mind what the sentence was) held for personal views or opinions of any matter (including religious) by definition to be inhumane (is this the spiritual grandfather of your current anti-racism and holocaust denial laws on the continent maybe?), even with the best due process and impartiality of the decisions makers in the world. The same goes for any method of trial where guilt is presumed and torture is permitted. I wish I could say I only oppose the Inquisition for it's methods, but I can't, the offenses that could bring you in front of it include such things as failure to believe that bread and wine become the body of Christ.

Bush once garbled the saying "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me again, shame on me." It might be regrettable that we were fooled centuries and centuries ago by the church and it's methods, but I don't what we would call it if those methods are still fooling us.

There is a difference between defensible and understandable. Understandable in that you can tell how at the time it was defensible, at least in the beginning. The witch hunts quickly turned into "I don't like so-and-so, they're a witch".

Robin: I see what you're saying but you're missing the entire point. While it is true that SOME forms of heresy were prosecuted (and ended in a confession followed by perhaps a pilgrimage or so), your portrayal of the Church as a medieval bloodthirsty big brother is just wrong. Those times were far more violent and brutal than the times we live in now, and if anything the Church usually acted as a limit on excessive violence, including that of the state. You mentioning the use of torture gives a very good illustration of this. Up until the early 19th century, torture was an accepted method of investigation in secular courts, while the Church had already stopped using it. Even before then, there was an almost universal rule which stated that torture could only be initiated if there was already a certain amount of proof, could leave no permanent injuries, no blood could be drawn and the confession was to be repeated by the suspect half an hour after the torture ended. The Inquisition made absolutely certain all those rules were respected, it actually went to great lengths to achieve this, the secular courts regularly violated it and had torture end in mutilation or death. The Church didn't act according to what we see as due procedural protection and due process these days, but unlike the marxist jewish-inspired pseudohistorical view on the middle ages and early modern times which I'm disappointed to see has even influenced you, the Church wasn't the engine behind judicial cruelties, but the brake on it.

Sinclair: everywhere except in Spain witches were tried (and sometimes executed, but that was rare too) by secular courts. Only in Spain did the Inquisition prosecute them, and the proportion of executions of convicted witches was among the lowest of Europe there.

Both of you: The most common punishment for religious offenses by far in the middle ages and the early modern times was a pilgrimage and/or the lighting of some candles in church. Even for the witchtrials, prosecuted by secular courts, the few executions which followed such convictions were never handed out for mere witchcraft, but always for things such as 'killing people with sorcery', which when you think of it, is a preposterous wording to describe a form of murder (in their minds these things were possible, so it wasn't hard at all to conceive this form of murder, and the desire to punish murder can hardly be called savage). Robin makes an analogy with the thoughtcrimes we see today in Europe: imo the punishment for those usually exceeds by far what the Church sentenced in the aforementioned period of time.

Was I the one talking about secular courts and witch hunts? I honestly can't remember, and what I wrote was sort of vague.

There is a difference between defensible and understandable. Understandable in that you can tell how at the time it was defensible, at least in the beginning. The witch hunts quickly turned into "I don't like so-and-so, they're a witch".
Here ya go. I added the secular/canon distinction because it added to the dialogue with Robin I was already engaged in at the moment. :)