While Christianity may be tepid among the European liberal elite, it remains alive and well among many Europeans. This is especially true for ordinary, everyday Europeans. Though it is often claimed that Christianity is headed for extinction, this is far from the truth even in "secular" Western Europe. Indeed, it is possible that Christianity will experience a massive revival in reaction to the Muslim invasion. Practically every "far right" party in Europe is either explicitly Chrisitan or supportive of Christianity. Their voters also tend to be Christians. It is clear that the death of Christianity in Europe has been greatly exaggerated. This is probably a good thing, since like it or not, an aggressive religion like Islam simply cannot be defeated by secular humanism.

Christianity is even making a rightwing comeback (not that it ever died completely) in the Scandinavian countries.

From the Norwegian Bjørn Stærk blog (http://blog.bearstrong.net/000052.html):
"The Danish People's Party is very different. It has certain aspects of American conservatism about it. They have a strong sense of patriotism, are very clear about Christianity being a central part of Danish culture, and feel warmly about individual freedom and law and order. They're also highly critical of the EU. On the issue of Muslim immigration, I think you can compare them to Oriana Fallaci. I've said before that Pia Kjærsgaard would feel at home as a bellicose blogger. She has a sharp pen and a good eye for the ridiculous effects of p.c.'ness.
...
Carl I Hagen and the Progress Party stand somewhere between these other two parties. They have secular libertarian roots, but also hold an appeal for conservative Christians...
The platform of Norway's Progress Party opens up with the line,

"The Progress Party is a libertarian party. It builds on the Constitution of Norway, Norwegian and western traditions and cultural heritage with a basis in the Christian outlook on life."

Now, if Christianity were dead in Norway what would be the point in emphasizing it in their platform? Obviously, they're getting voters by doing so; and by not doing so they would get complaints.

Here's a quote from their leader, Carl Ivar Hagen: "We Christians are deeply concerned with children. Jesus said, 'let the small children come to me.' I can't imagine that Muhammed could have said the same thing. [laughter] If he had, it would have been 'Let the small children come to me, so I can exploit them in my struggle to Islamify the world.'"

Works for me.

As in America, there is a fundamental gap between the liberal elite of Europe and the masses. Studies show that the vast majority of Italians are opposed to gay marriage, and tend to base their stance upon Christianity. Yet liberals in the European bureaucracy are determined to force the gay agenda upon the masses. Likewise, faith-based politicians like Buttiglione are popular among ordinary Europeans but detested among the liberal elite.

Buttiglione in crusade to protect Christians' values
by Paul Cachia, di-ve news (pcachia@di-ve.com)

VALLETTA, Malta (di-ve news)--November 08, 2004 - 1045CET-- Rocco Buttiglione, the Italian European commissioner-designate who was forced to step down after causing a furore with his views on gays and women is to embark on a Europe-wide campaign to promote Christian values in public life.

According to the UK's Guardian newspaper, Buttigilione will lead what he is calling a "battle for the freedom of Christians" against the "creeping totalitarism" of those not agreement with his beliefs.

Mr Buttiglione is a strong Catholic and a friend of the Pope, is expected to team up with Italian journalist Guliano Ferrara. Speaking at TV programme, he said that his initiative is already being supported in Poland and Spain.

The former Italian minister launched the campaign at a rally entitled, "the trial of the Catholic witch" in Milan on Saturday, the Guardian reported.

Rejected EU commissioner to form Christian lobby
excerpts

By Bruce Johnston
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

ROME — Rocco Buttiglione, the European commissioner-designate rejected by Brussels because of his Catholic views on abortion and homosexuality, plans to form a religious lobby group to "battle for the freedom of Christians" in Europe.
Mr. Buttiglione bowed to pressure a week ago and withdrew from the commission team proposed by incoming President Jose Barroso, after vehement opposition from members of the European Parliament.
Scandalized by the hostility shown by European lawmakers toward his religious views, the Italian minister for Europe now hopes to create a Christian network to exert pressure on "totalitarian" institutions such as the Strasbourg-based body.
In Rome last week, Mr. Buttiglione said: "There are a lot of people, including politicians, who have been ringing me not only from inside Italy, but also from Spain, Britain and Germany."
...
Senior aides to the Italian minister told the Sunday Telegraph that the new Christian network would not take the form of a political party, but would be a kind of "movement or association" committed to a greater role for Christian principles in public life.
They added that the political professor, who will remain in the Italian government, was inspired by the role of Christian voters in America last week.
One close adviser said: "Mr. Buttiglione is thinking of a novel idea: a kind of resurgent Christian political movement in Europe. The success of President George W. Bush in mobilizing the Christian vote in America last week is a sign of what can be done."
In a reference to the American election, Mr. Buttiglione wrote in the conservative Italian newspaper, Il Foglio: "In Europe, our intellectuals were always convinced that modernity brings with itself the extinction of religious faith.
"Now America, the most advanced country in the world, shows us that religion may be and indeed is a fundamental element of a free society and modern economy."
...
more at
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041106-112315-6689r.htm

His catholicism is quite different from the wannabe-jewish dispensationalist zombies who united en bloc behind Bu$h. You're comparing apples with oranges as we say here Raina.

"Le Pen is, in many ways, a man with a medieval view of society (I mean no insult), especially in his view of the state’s duty to maintain society’s unifying sense of the sacred, and conserve the “rootedness” of the French in their own tradition:
It is past time to reintroduce the Sacred into our society. We see clearly that our contemporaries are hungry for more than bread. … The progressive secularization of Western societies since the 16th Century, a secularization they have exported to the rest of the world, bears a very heavy responsibility for the “disenchantment of the modern world” (Weber). [emphasis added]
"This is a man who takes the long view, who has also said that communism and Nazism are the “dreadful bastards” of the French Revolution. La France also implicitly rebukes Chirac (on the stump, Le Pen is far less polite about Chirac, whom he considers a traitor and a thief), for his failure to maintain that sense of the sacred:

http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/le_pen.htm

Did you read the article? I didn't make the comparison. Rocco Buttiglione and his advisors did.

Also, it's a huge stretch to label all American Christians "wannabe-jewish dispensationalist zombies." Even on Free Republic, I see many Christian Republicans make negative comments about Jews (i.e. that they need to convert, that too many are liberals, etc.).

Anyway, his point was that faith isn't going away, not even in our oh-so-advanced modern societies.

Even on Free Republic, I see many Christian Republicans make negative comments about Jews (i.e. that they need to convert, that too many are liberals, etc.).

Got some links???

Anything that is even close to telling the truth about jews is moderated at FR. I like when Madrussian posted (maybe it was at OD) that he wished FR never closes because this intense moderation backfires and makes FR into an anti-semite factory.

I think that King Leopold II is right about the Catholic nature of this phenomena. Note that in Catholicism these "European right" folks can pray/ ask for intercession from White Saints. Something that is not available to the zionist judeo-Christians who can only pray to yahweh through his jewish son Jesus Christ. Mega-difference. When Le Pen forced that one run off election a few years back against Chirac it once showed on TV Le Pen making a pilgramage to a golden statue of Joan of Arc.

His catholicism is quite different from the wannabe-jewish dispensationalist zombies who united en bloc behind Bu$h. You're comparing apples with oranges as we say here Raina.

Excellent point. Its recent corruption by modern liberalism aside, Catholicism has been for all intents and purposes the religion of Europe and inextricably part of European cultural identity. Even the militantly atheist and materialist Revilo Oliver defined "whites" as those who were Catholic in 1492 (and it must be remembered that when Hilaire Belloc stated "Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe" he did so as a cultural Catholic, not a religious one).

As such, I see the embrace of religious traditions and rituals as a necessary component for Europeans to retain their sense of identity and cultural heritage. They can do so without accepting or believing any of the mythological nonsense that goes along with it, particularly the destructive doctrines of the Old Testament (which Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, unlike the lunatic Calvinists, had the good sense to interpret metaphorically rather than literally).

"... the destructive doctrines of the Old Testament ..."


Pray tell me, what are these "destructive doctrines"?


Petr

(and it must be remembered that when Hilaire Belloc stated "Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe" he did so as a cultural Catholic, not a religious one)

I'll deal more with this since at the moment I have Robert Speaight's bio on Belloc.

You're somewhat right, Belloc was indeed a cultural Catholic in large respects. He saw the Catholic church as the basis for European culture, since it incorporated and preserved the Classical culture of Greece and Roime and took it into the Middle Ages, which then of course mixed with the traditions of other European peoples.

As for being a religious Catholic, one cannot deny he was that either, although it does depend on what one means by "religious" Catholic as opposed to "cultural" Catholic. Belloc certainly prefered Medieval theologians as opposed to scriptures(in fact he was known for his lack of knowledge on scriptures, especially the Old Testament), and on at least one occasion he admitted he'd prefered that the church was founded in Rome as opposed to Galilee.

So I wouldnt say Belloc wasnt a religious Catholice per se, but closer to the truth would be his sense of cultural Catholicism greatly influenced his sense of religious Catholicism. For a Catholic, theres nothing entirely wrong with this...indeed much of my sense of Catholic faith bears strong resemblences to Belloc's. In fact it was this cultural heritage of the church that brought me back from atheism; and how the church did much to preserve the European(or more specifically in my case Ukrainian) culture.

More later.

"... the destructive doctrines of the Old Testament ..."


Pray tell me, what are these "destructive doctrines"?


Petr

European peoples embracing a book of another people's myths is by its nature pernicious. The destructive aspects were somewhat tempered by the fact that most adherents of the new faith saw it as an opportunity to put old wine into new bottles, i.e. celebrating the same pagan holidays and rituals (and in some ways, gods) under a new name. Similarly, Catholic worship of saints replaced OT-based worship of Jewish patriarchs. Christianity is therefore valuable insofar as it is a European cultural phenomenon, I had discussed this at the old phora in my essay, "Christianity and Pseudomorphosis."

To briefly recapitulate, the inner doctrines of the Old Testament are completely alien to Europeans (and to other non-Semitic peoples to which they are introduced) because they are the product of a Semitic mind and a Semitic culture. In order to become meaningful and comprehensible, those nations and peoples who adopt "Christianity" inculturate it with their own worldview and traditions. The use of Christian holidays and rituals as surrogates for old pagan ones is one such example, as it the fact that every people that has adopted Christianity has paid much more attention to their own national saints (e.g. St. Patrick in Ireland, etc) than to the largely meaningless and irrelevant Judaic patriarchs of the OT.

Calvinism was a great misfortune in that it attempted to completely "de-Westernize" Christianity and return it to its Judaic roots. It is natural that anyone who takes "I shall bless those who bless thee" seriously and accepts the "promised land" and "chosen people" myths will naturally tend towards dispensationalist Christian Zionist beliefs. I have yet to meet any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Zionists, but they abound among Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. Was it a coincidence that Catholics and Anglicans kept Jews out of England while Cromwell let them back in?

I will also add that Weber was correct to identify Calvinism with capitalism, as was Sombart in identifying it with Judaism. In Judaism and Judaized Christianity (Calvinism) alike, there is a tendency to equate wealth with virtue, i.e. "wealth and worldly success in this life is proof that God has smiled upon you." Hence the materialiistic values that permeate modern America can be attributed to Judaism and Calvinism alike.

Good post AY, but I think you underestimate the Old Testament and its influence on European Christianity(at least in the Middle Ages). Peter Brown in his Rise of Western Christendom notes how the Old Testament played a role in shaping Christianity in Europe(for example Clovis was protrayed as ruler akin to King David of Israel) and Adrian Hastings also notes the role the Old Testament played in shaping European concepts of nationhood, even in the Middle Ages. And also the Old Testament played a key role in Armenia, where the examples of men like Judah Maccabees were upheld as examples to follow when fighting against the Persians.

However what the Protestants did was give more emphasis on the Old Testament; while Medieval Christianity, while not ignoring the OT completely, placed more emphasis on the New Testament.

Good post AY, but I think you underestimate the Old Testament and its influence on European Christianity(at least in the Middle Ages). Peter Brown in his Rise of Western Christendom notes how the Old Testament played a role in shaping Christianity in Europe(for example Clovis was protrayed as ruler akin to King David of Israel) and Adrian Hastings also notes the role the Old Testament played in shaping European concepts of nationhood, even in the Middle Ages. And also the Old Testament played a key role in Armenia, where the examples of men like Judah Maccabees were upheld as examples to follow when fighting against the Persians.

However what the Protestants did was give more emphasis on the Old Testament; while Medieval Christianity, while not ignoring the OT completely, placed more emphasis on the New Testament.

Even more important than its emphasis on the NT and de-emphasis of the OT is the fact that Medieval Christendom focused on European saints and on the native mythology that grew out of Western Christendom, for instance Arthurian legend. This guaranteed that Catholicism would be identified as a specifically European phenomenon rather than as a renegade outgrowth of Judaism.

Belloc did indeed write that he wished that Christianity had been founded in Athens or Rome rather than in Israel. In a sense, if one identifies the beginning of Christendom (as opposed to Christianity) with Constantine, his wish was half-fulfilled.

My personal wish is that the Marcionite "heresy" had become canonized and that Gnosticism, which rejects the OT and its Tribal Deity as a false demiurge, had become official Church doctrine.

Even more important than its emphasis on the NT and de-emphasis of the OT is the fact that Medieval Christendom focused on European saints and on the native mythology that grew out of Western Christendom, for instance Arthurian legend. This guaranteed that Catholicism would be identified as a specifically European phenomenon rather than as a renegade outgrowth of Judaism.

True. I agree with this except for maybe the comment about renegade outgrowth of Judaism.


Belloc did indeed write that he wished that Christianity had been founded in Athens or Rome rather than in Israel.

I tend towards this view as well to be fairly honest.


In a sense, if one identifies the beginning of Christendom (as opposed to Christianity) with Constantine, his wish was half-fulfilled.

Well like Belloc, Im more devoted to Christendom than Christianity. I totally disagree with Kierkegaard's(or even more generally Protestant) attacks on Christendom. Medieval Christianity appeals more to me than first century Christianity. I'll sooner read Thomas Aquinas than I will Ezeikiel.


My personal wish is that the Marcionite "heresy" had become canonized and that Gnosticism, which rejects the OT and its Tribal Deity as a false demiurge, had become official Church doctrine.

I disagree. I dont think the OT hurts Christianity per se, its just how Protestant fanatics lose sight of perspective and context when dealing with it.

Renegrade outgrowth of Judaism...

Spengler sees the cutting down of the Western Culture a consequence of the developpment of Jewish Diasporic Intelligentsia and its total and utter misunderstanding of the European Culture, which it perpetually developed a hatred against, in Marxist dogma of worker's rights and his brazen insult of Ethics representing the European Culture's highest form, in the Germanic ideal of Pfalzen and Burgen, their nobility and kingship.

Christianity and its expressions were only natural for the European/Western Spiritual Character, but eventually the dogma, borne of its history linked with that of the Middle Easterners, did indeed perverted its course and brought disaster upon disaster in that realm.

And today, liberal Christians speak of the common heritage of Arabian Islam and North Western European Christianity, even as Pagans beat that drum with all their vigour.

Christian theology is radically different from Judaic and Islamic theology. Culturally speaking, Christianity is a Greco-Roman, and hence European, religion.

Ironically, Islam and Judaism, with their dietary rules and "talmudic" approach to theology, have more in common with each other than either has with Christianity.

Calvinism was a great misfortune in that it attempted to completely "de-Westernize" Christianity and return it to its Judaic roots. It is natural that anyone who takes "I shall bless those who bless thee" seriously and accepts the "promised land" and "chosen people" myths will naturally tend towards dispensationalist Christian Zionist beliefs. I have yet to meet any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Zionists, but they abound among Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. Was it a coincidence that Catholics and Anglicans kept Jews out of England while Cromwell let them back in?

I will also add that Weber was correct to identify Calvinism with capitalism, as was Sombart in identifying it with Judaism. In Judaism and Judaized Christianity (Calvinism) alike, there is a tendency to equate wealth with virtue, i.e. "wealth and worldly success in this life is proof that God has smiled upon you." Hence the materialiistic values that permeate modern America can be attributed to Judaism and Calvinism alike.

I agree. For countless centuries has catholicism been very hostile towards the yids, and not alone for their practice of usury. This healthy distrust carried on all the way until WW2. Only recently has catholicism become a pussified shabbos shadow of itself.

- "In Judaism and Judaized Christianity (Calvinism) alike, there is a tendency to equate wealth with virtue, i.e. "wealth and worldly success in this life is proof that God has smiled upon you"

I have heard this stereotype so many times - can any of you actually give me a citation from some Calvinist theologian who declares such a thing?


Besides, this sounds a bit like jealous resentment from the part of Catholics.

By the way of comparison, Nietszche argued that when Christians opposed the ancient pagan notion that "gods love a successful person," that it was an example of resentful slave morality...


Petr

- "In Judaism and Judaized Christianity (Calvinism) alike, there is a tendency to equate wealth with virtue, i.e. "wealth and worldly success in this life is proof that God has smiled upon you"

I have heard this stereotype so many times - can any of you actually give me a citation from some Calvinist theologian who declares such a thing?


Besides, this sounds a bit like jealous resentment from the part of Catholics.

By the way of comparison, Nietszche argued that when Christians opposed the ancient pagan notion that "gods love a successful person," that it was an example of resentful slave morality...


Petr

My source for this is Weber's Capitalism and the Protestant Ethic. I don't own a copy or have one handy for quotes, but he goes into some detail about how teachings of predestination relate to attitudes towards worldly success, citing examples from various Puritan laws and attitudes.

The Nietzsche quote you cite reinforces the view that the early Christian churches considered poverty a virtue while Judaism does not. Nor does Calvinism.

I agree. For countless centuries has catholicism been very hostile towards the yids, and not alone for their practice of usury. This healthy distrust carried on all the way until WW2. Only recently has catholicism become a pussified shabbos shadow of itself.


Actually, Catholics and Jews had a nice racket going on for a long time, to say otherwise would be to continue the myth of perpetual Jewish suffering. Jewish usury was a privilege granted by the authorities. The papacy forbade forced conversion of Jews in the 7th century. Popes and princes were often quick to condemn the occasional anti-Jewish uprising. I might post more about Jews in Western Europe before the Renaissance some time later.

Actually, Catholics and Jews had a nice racket going on for a long time, to say otherwise would be to continue the myth of perpetual Jewish suffering. Jewish usury was a privilege granted by the authorities.

Yeah secular authorities much to the disgust of Religious leaders.


The papacy forbade forced conversion of Jews in the 7th century.

Yeah and? Thomas Aquinas condemned forced conversion as violating the free will of non-christians before God.


Popes and princes were often quick to condemn the occasional anti-Jewish uprising.

Yes and? One has to support pogroms to be anti-semitic?

- "Thomas Aquinas condemned forced conversion as violating the free will of non-christians before God."

Interesting. Can you give me any quotation or source about this argument of his?


Petr

- "Thomas Aquinas condemned forced conversion as violating the free will of non-christians before God."

Interesting. Can you give me any quotation or source about this argument of his?


Petr
Sure....I can quote out of my edition of St. Thomas Aquinas on politics and ethics : a new translation, backgrounds, interpretations where they mention his views on non-christians living in christian states.

Yeah and? Thomas Aquinas condemned forced conversion as violating the free will of non-christians before God.



That was, what, about 600 years later? Didn't St. Augustine argue for forced conversions? The Catholic Church accepted plenty of forced converts, from the Saxons in Charlemagne's time, the Finns after a military defeat, to the Huguenots after the treaty of Nantes was revoked. It would seem that forced conversions in practice were tolerated for gentiles, but not Jews (whose forced conversion was explicitly banned by Gregory the Great, who also forbade any harm to be allowed to happen to the Jews.) If the church objected to this, I have yet to see any record of it. The Church took an official stance against Christian heretics while simultaneously protecting the lives, property and traditions of Jews.



Yes and? One has to support pogroms to be anti-semitic?

No, I have never called for pogroms, but can an organization which avowedly protects the Jew's well-being and interests be said to be anti-Jewish?

Yeah secular authorities much to the disgust of Religious leaders.

Was it within the Church's power to stop it, and if it was, did they?

The Nietzsche quote you cite reinforces the view that the early Christian churches considered poverty a virtue while Judaism does not. Nor does Calvinism.

Which is one of another reasons why I strongly hate Catholicism and look on Protestant christianity as superior.

Aestheticism( though not if taken to extremes), the lack of an emotional need for material comforts is a virtue, poverty in itself is not.

Catholicism never considered being wealthy a sin, it does consider being greedy a sin though, and I agree (I just wouldn't label it with the word sin per se). Poverty in itself isn't a virtue to catholicism, although it does contrast with greed of course.

Catholicism never considered being wealthy a sin

In practice it hasn't as long as you give the Syndicate er I mean the Church its cut( though I can't get too angry about that as far as Medieval Europe goes because the church was essentially an arm of the government on much of the continent and all governments demand their cut).

The thing that pisses me off is they argue materialism is a sin for the rest of humanity... but okay for the Church for the glory of God. To illustrate an example they come to Massachussetts and preach social justice( water downed marxism without all that athiest stuff) and support the Democratic party and help illegals move in while in certain Latin American countries the Catholic Church is the single biggest holder of real estate.

Juan Valdez wants his 40 acres and a mule.

Ironic to see such drivel from the Phora's biggest shabbos goy. Their large real-estate patrimony comes mainly from inherited real estate, childless believers who leave their belongings to their Church. This phaenomenon is universal, and happens in all religions, but of course keikel here only takes offense when it happens in the Church. Tell me keikel, how does accepting an inheritance violate their own rules?

Ironic to see such drivel from the Phora's biggest shabbos goy. Their large real-estate patrimony comes mainly from inherited real estate, childless believers who leave their belongings to their Church. This phaenomenon is universal, and happens in all religions, but of course keikel here only takes offense when it happens in the Church. Tell me keikel, how does accepting an inheritance violate their own rules?Ah... I was under the impression that plenty of those believers were talked by priest into screwing their kids for indulgences( find an old sick guy out of his mind and convince him hes going to hell unless he donates his property). But this is a side issue.

How they aqquired the property is not the point, they are always preaching social justice well why not sell off some of their assets and put them to the good causes they think taxpayers should pay for everywhere. It would be far better for the economy for one thing...

Interesting. Can you give me any quotation or source about this argument of his?


Petr

Sorry for the late reply, Ive been real busy lately and only recently had time to type this.

“8. Are Unbelievers to be Forced to Accept the Faith?
There are some unbelievers such as the Gentiles[Muslims] and the Hebrews who have never accepted the Christian faith. These should in no way be forced to believe, for the faith is a matter of the will. Appropriate force may be used by the faithful to prevent them from interfering with the faith through blasphemy, or evil inducements, or open persecution. This is the reason that Christians often make war on unbelievers, not to force them to believe – since even if they conquered them and made them prisoners they would leave them free as to whether they wished to believe – but to prevent them from interfering with the Christian faith. However there are other unbelievers such as heretics and all apostates who once accepted and professed the faith. These are to be compelled, even by physical force, to carry out what they promised and to hold what they once accepted.”
--“Summa Theologiae” Part II, St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics Translated and Edited by Paul E. Sigmund pg.61

The Catholic Church accepted plenty of forced converts, from the Saxons in Charlemagne's time,

:rolleyes: Yes stopping rebels from burning down churches and massacring priests is "forced conversion"



No, I have never called for pogroms, but can an organization which avowedly protects the Jew's well-being and interests be said to be anti-Jewish?

Read about the Inquisition and how it treated Jews....there you can read about how the church protected the well-being of Jews.

Perun: :rolleyes: Yes stopping rebels from burning down churches and massacring priests is "forced conversion"

Surely a cultural battle rather than simple rebellion?

Read about the Inquisition and how it treated Jews....there you can read about how the church protected the well-being of Jews.

The Inquisition only applied to Christians, any Jew who had dealings with the Inquisition would have had to have made a conversion, if only for the sake of appearances. And that is precisely why they did, the conversions were often only superficial. If you wish, I could cite incidents where the church granted Jews special rights and protections to the Jews.


Yes stopping rebels from burning down churches and massacring priests is "forced conversion"
Yes it is, even if you do not like rebels, a forced conversion is a forced conversion. I do not understand what you say, are you insisting that Charlemagne did not force conversions? See, I suspect you are trying to use this discussion as opportunity to argue for Christianity. I am not expressing any opinion for or against any aspect of any Christian denomonation, I am only interested in the factual record of occurances. Anyhow, here is part Charlemagne's own legal code:

"If any one of the race of Saxons concealed among them wishes to hide himself unbaptised, and has scorned to come to baptism and has wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death."

Now, you may or may not agree with that policy, and are free to judge for yourself whether it was a good idea or the right thing to do, Perun, but I think you will have quite a difficult time making a case that such a law does not entail forced conversion.

The Inquisition only applied to Christians, any Jew who had dealings with the Inquisition would have had to have made a conversion, if only for the sake of appearances. And that is precisely why they did, the conversions were often only superficial.

Yes which is why the Inquisition came so hard on them....they quickly recognized the Jews' dubious nature.



If you wish, I could cite incidents where the church granted Jews special rights and protections to the Jews.

Go right ahead....and I can numerous instances where the church came down hard on the Jews. Hell just from a quick glance through James Carroll's Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews he notes that church provided the same harsh measures against the Jews as they did against heretics. In fact he notes that in the eyes of the church, heretic and jew became closer to each other.



Yes it is, even if you do not like rebels, a forced conversion is a forced conversion.

suppressing a rebellion is not conversion.


I do not understand what you say, are you insisting that Charlemagne did not force conversions?

No, but as Richard Fletcher notes in his The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity, the religious element in Charlamenge's campaign has been overblown. Fletcher notes the root of Charlamenge's brutal campaign in how Franks and Saxons dealt with each other before Christianity even became a factor. Charlamenge's campaigns bore similarity to earlier Frankish attempts at conquering the Saxons.


See, I suspect you are trying to use this discussion as opportunity to argue for Christianity.

Oh no the horror of defending the Christian faith. :rolleyes:


Anyhow, here is part Charlemagne's own legal code:

"If any one of the race of Saxons concealed among them wishes to hide himself unbaptised, and has scorned to come to baptism and has wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death."

Now, you may or may not agree with that policy, and are free to judge for yourself whether it was a good idea or the right thing to do, Perun, but I think you will have quite a difficult time making a case that such a law does not entail forced conversion.

As I stated before, suppressing a rebellion is not conversion. I never said there wasnt a religious element to Charlamenge's campaigns, but the fact the Saxons were rebelling(not that they were pagans) was the main cause for Charlamenge's brutality. The religious element has simply been overblown out of proportion. The Saxons were rebels plain and simple. The fact they were pagans gave an added twist to the situation: Christian vs. Pagan; but the main element to consider is that the Saxons were rebelling, and rebellions are often met with brutal suppression.

Are you saying Charlamenge would not have crushed the Saxon rebellion if the Saxons were Christians?

Yes which is why the Inquisition came so hard on them....they quickly recognized the Jews' dubious nature.




Go right ahead....and I can numerous instances where the church came down hard on the Jews. Hell just from a quick glance through James Carroll's Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews he notes that church provided the same harsh measures against the Jews as they did against heretics. In fact he notes that in the eyes of the church, heretic and jew became closer to each other.


suppressing a rebellion is not conversion.

No, but as Richard Fletcher notes in his The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity, the religious element in Charlamenge's campaign has been overblown. Fletcher notes the root of Charlamenge's brutal campaign in how Franks and Saxons dealt with each other before Christianity even became a factor. Charlamenge's campaigns bore similarity to earlier Frankish attempts at conquering the Saxons.


Oh no the horror of defending the Christian faith. :rolleyes:

As I stated before, suppressing a rebellion is not conversion. I never said there wasnt a religious element to Charlamenge's campaigns, but the fact the Saxons were rebelling(not that they were pagans) was the main cause for Charlamenge's brutality. The religious element has simply been overblown out of proportion. The Saxons were rebels plain and simple. The fact they were pagans gave an added twist to the situation: Christian vs. Pagan; but the main element to consider is that the Saxons were rebelling, and rebellions are often met with brutal suppression.

Are you saying Charlamenge would not have crushed the Saxon rebellion if the Saxons were Christians?


By paragraph

1. Yes, but those Jews had it coming to them by making a choice to pretend to convert. The church courts and Inquisition had no jurisdiction over Jews practicing Judaism.

2. Sure, but individual anti-Jewish actions do not nullify the fact that the church did things which were beneifical to Jews.

3. Threatening death to those who do not convert is forced conversion, unless you want to go into a longwinded semantic argument.

4. Off topic and not directly related to the main point.

5. Defend it all you like, but sometimes it is important to take a critical view.

6. See 3 and 4.

7. No, I am saying that Charlemagne's law dictated that people converted on pain of death.

By paragraph

1. Yes, but those Jews had it coming to them by making a choice to pretend to convert. The church courts and Inquisition had no jurisdiction over Jews practicing Judaism.

Pg. 307 James Carroll refutes this claiming that the Church in 1236 headed by Pope Gregory set up a papal inquisition for the sole purpose of dealing with the Jews(unbaptized ones) and Carroll quotes Jeremy Cohen on page 308 that this implied "moral and theological authority over the content of Jewish belief".


2. Sure, but individual anti-Jewish actions do not nullify the fact that the church did things which were beneifical to Jews.

LOL If individual anti-Jewish actions dot no count, then individual pro-Jewish actions are as equally irrelevant. Thank you for refuting yourself.


3. Threatening death to those who do not convert is forced conversion, unless you want to go into a longwinded semantic argument.

Forcing conversion as merely as a side-effect of crushing a rebellion of a non-Christian people ignores larger issues. Just like the Romans were not anti-semitic for the most part but suppressing Jewish rebellions often entailed edicts against elements of jewish culture and religion as a way of punishing the rebellious population. Same logic applies here.


4. Off topic and not directly related to the main point.

LOL no....it goes right to the issue.

Weak reply I must say.

LOL If individual anti-Jewish actions dot no count, then individual pro-Jewish actions are as equally irrelevant. Thank you for refuting yourself.

Forcing conversion as merely as a side-effect of crushing a rebellion of a non-Christian people ignores larger issues. Just like the Romans were not anti-semitic for the most part but suppressing Jewish rebellions often entailed edicts against elements of jewish culture and religion as a way of punishing the rebellious population. Same logic applies here.


LOL no....it goes right to the issue.

Weak reply I must say.

I will reply when you are capable of making a reponse that is not permeated with personal attacks, red herrings and misreprentations of what I actually said. I am not going to waste my time simply reaffirming my real words and postions in reponse to what I consider to me your (presumably deliberate) distortion, the introduction of irrelevant materials, and personal attacks.

I will reply when you are capable of making a reponse that is not permeated with personal attacks, red herrings and misreprentations of what I actually said.

None of which I have done. You claim the Church somehow had a special protection for Jews, and yet have failed to provide one example of such. A casual glance through the history of Jewish-Christian relations will prove your assertion totally wrong. In fact there are too many books on the topic I can rely on to prove your case wrong!

You're only defense so far for your assertion of Christian protection of Jews is twisting around certain condemnations of violence against Jews, although upon reading Carroll last night he claims that yes there was a division among Christians on whether to use violent or non-violent means against the Jews, but both factions were still staunchly anti-Jewish. You claim the Jews were special because they weren forced to convert, St. Augustine argued against this approach because the Jews must remain as perpetual symbols of Christ's crucifixtion(which they bear responsibility for). So while violence against Jew is wrong he argued, Jews should not in any way be permitted to thrive as a community. Their status as lowly outcasts would be a long drawn out punishment. So its now becoming clear that you're twisting non-violent anti-semitism with philo-semitism.

You brought up Charlamenge's campaign yet you dont want to address it within its entire context(through which religion was but one element), so its clear you dont even want to discuss topics that you bring up. If you cant handle the truth about and context on a topic that YOU first brought up because that would clearly refute your argument, well thats too damn bad really. YOU brought up Charlamenge's campaign, not me.


I am not going to waste my time simply reaffirming my real words and postions in reponse to what I consider to me your (presumably deliberate) distortion, the introduction of irrelevant materials, and personal attacks.

In other words, you dont want to debate this further because its clear you'll be proven wrong. Reaffirming your words? With what? I replied to you and all you responded with was a bunch of weak-ass one sentence replies. You havent even made any attempt to back up your assertions, and when I provide evidence to the contrary you either ignore it or desperately try to fluff it off by declaring it irrelevant(of course you also make no attempt at explaining why it is).

So dont hand me this bullshit!