Christianity in Britain declining
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You almost said it in that you were trying to find any reason other than religion to not face the reality that these attacks were fundamentally driven in some form by religious belief. And you suggested money might be a motive.You raised the Paris attacks and money being a motivation in the same sentence.
Given all (I think) the attackers are dead, and would know that would be the likely outcome, that seems an implausible motive.
///ajd said:
What about the poor Cathars?
Relentlessly hunted down and killed for believing in 2 deities - under papal orders.
Are you going to say that was just a cover story to nick a few castles?
I didn't have to look far to find other stuff going on...Relentlessly hunted down and killed for believing in 2 deities - under papal orders.
Are you going to say that was just a cover story to nick a few castles?
"The Crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French crown and promptly took on a political flavour, resulting in not only a significant reduction in the number of practising Cathars but also a realignment of the County of Toulouse, bringing it into the sphere of the French crown and diminishing the distinct regional culture and high level of influence of the Counts of Barcelona."
Derek Smith said:
cymtriks said:
Derek Smith said:
The crusades were started by the then pope. His motives were his own, but they were religion based.
That is demonstrably false. Any look at the expanding power of the Middle East in that time frame and their campaigns, varying from full on conquest to widespread slave raids, will show that it was a military response to a military threat. Remember that before the wars European territory and influence extended right to the edge of the Byzantine Empire. The Arab armies ultimately got as far as northern France (Battle of Tours) and the gates of Vienna. In the process Europe lost Spain, Constantinople, Greece, the Balkans and lots else for centuries.Europe was under a sustained and serious attack. Spain(AD721)was invaded and then France. The Invasion was actually stopped at Tours, over half way across France! (AD732). The Arab states conquered most of the Eastern Roman Empire which represented a significant loss of territory, Manzikert (1071AD)and influence in the Middle East. It was this that prompted the Byzantine request for help (1095AD) that started the crusades.
If that lot isn't a clear and obvious territorial war I'd like to know what is!
cymtriks said:
Yes. Obvious thing is obvious.
Europe was under a sustained and serious attack. Spain(AD721)was invaded and then France. The Invasion was actually stopped at Tours, over half way across France! (AD732). The Arab states conquered most of the Eastern Roman Empire which represented a significant loss of territory, Manzikert (1071AD)and influence in the Middle East. It was this that prompted the Byzantine request for help (1095AD) that started the crusades.
If that lot isn't a clear and obvious territorial war I'd like to know what is!
So a call to arms by the head honcho of the holy roman empire, calling on god and promising a quick entry to heaven, not passing go, was not a religious war? That those who answered the bloke's call to rid the holy land of the infidel went there for their heavenly reward makes it state sponsored empire building?Europe was under a sustained and serious attack. Spain(AD721)was invaded and then France. The Invasion was actually stopped at Tours, over half way across France! (AD732). The Arab states conquered most of the Eastern Roman Empire which represented a significant loss of territory, Manzikert (1071AD)and influence in the Middle East. It was this that prompted the Byzantine request for help (1095AD) that started the crusades.
If that lot isn't a clear and obvious territorial war I'd like to know what is!
Whilst I would accept that all historians agreeing on a subject does not make it true and that coming in off the plane with an unusual interpretation of the known facts is to be praised, there does have to be some correlation with the known facts.
Pope Urban demand was the start of the whole series of attacks, going on for centuries. The third crusade started with an attack on other catholics, the reason for this being to extend the influence of the western catholic empire to the east, hence the battle with those already there.
Whether or not it had territorial objectives is immaterial in the argument as to religious wars. It was, quite clearly, a war started by the head vicar of the western catholic church against various other religions, including other christians, other catholics in fact. Just read what various warmongering popes said at various times. They were jihads.
I'm all for a 'what if we look at it this way' scenario, but a church led war against other religions, including the same religion, is by any definition a religious war. Arguments about its objective and intent cannot change that.
Derek Smith said:
So a call to arms by the head honcho of the holy roman empire, calling on god and promising a quick entry to heaven, not passing go, was not a religious war? That those who answered the bloke's call to rid the holy land of the infidel went there for their heavenly reward makes it state sponsored empire building?
Actually the Byzantine Emperor requested help from Europe via the Pope. The pope was a fairly obvious person to go to as he had influence everywhere in Europe whereas Kings and Emperors only held sway in their own countries. At the time of the Crusades Spain had fallen for over three hundred years, France had almost fallen, saved by the Franks and The Holy Roman Empire, every southern European nation had had wars or raids on their coastline. The Byzantines had been fighting the Turks for a long time and were losing ground. If they were in trouble then everyone was. Derek Smith said:
Whilst I would accept that all historians agreeing on a subject does not make it true and that coming in off the plane with an unusual interpretation of the known facts is to be praised, there does have to be some correlation with the known facts.
Lets imagine that there was no religion at all in the middle ages. Some people in the Middle East start expanding their atheist empires. European powers come under increasing pressure over several hundred years. Eventually the major power on the European side says "help!" and appeals to someone well known and influential across Europe. By this time most of the major European powers are dealing with trouble ranging from conquest to piracy and slave raids.Can you find a single historian that genuinely thinks that Europe would then have said "we can't be bothered to fight, we're atheists"?
It's called a religious war due to lazy convenience.
Derek Smith said:
Pope Urban demand was the start of the whole series of attacks, going on for centuries. The third crusade started with an attack on other catholics, the reason for this being to extend the influence of the western catholic empire to the east, hence the battle with those already there.
I see that as being similar to McCarthyism in 50's America. By that time paranoia had set in regarding anyone who wasn't following the official line.Derek Smith said:
Whether or not it had territorial objectives is immaterial in the argument as to religious wars. It was, quite clearly, a war started by the head vicar of the western catholic church against various other religions, including other christians, other catholics in fact. Just read what various warmongering popes said at various times. They were jihads.
I'm all for a 'what if we look at it this way' scenario, but a church led war against other religions, including the same religion, is by any definition a religious war. Arguments about its objective and intent cannot change that.
How can someone without an army start a war? The pope received an appeal from a major European-ish power that was in trouble. The Eastern Mediterranean and all the trade routes out of it were under threat from a competing power block. The Pope's response was to attempt to rally a united counter strike. He was ideally placed for this because of his position which was probably why the appeal went to him.I'm all for a 'what if we look at it this way' scenario, but a church led war against other religions, including the same religion, is by any definition a religious war. Arguments about its objective and intent cannot change that.
The test of a religious war is surely if that war would have happened without religion. In every case I can find people with interests other than religion (territory, dynastic feuds or ambitions, trade routes, etc) so it seems clear that those wars would have happened anyway albeit with a different call to arms for the masses.
To call the crusades religiously motivated is a bit simplistic and misses the point IMO that at that time there was no real dividing line between religion and state. It was Christendom versus the Muslim Arabian empire. It was religious and territorial but there was no Christian imperative to conquer new (or reconquer old) territory. There was (and is) and Islamic imperative to conquer new territory. Religion is more often a dividing line than a cause for war but in the case of Islam war and conquest are very much a part of it.
It is farcical to suggest that a war can only be called religious if it would not have taken place if there was no religion. A religious war can be described in many ways. There is the jihad where some religious nutter declares war on another, demanding that his adherents should kill the others for heavenly reward. The crusades fall fairly and squarely into that definition. The point is, one often repeated, that the catholic church was an empire. Its bosses were motivated by the same desires as monarchs. The main difference was that the pope promised things would be nicer once you were dead.
But most of us plebs believed the rubbish dealt out by the virtually illiterate vicars and religion was a form of control. The justification for the jihands of the 12th century onwards, named the crusades, was to take possession (repossession according to the pope) of the so called holy land. There was no mention of the Moors in Spain. The reason the armies went was to liberate Jerusalem.
It was a holy war. One one side were the christians. They were out there because of what was seen as the desecration of Jerusalem by another religion. The motive of the pope is irrelevant. He used religion as the motivation. It was a holy war.
Not all crusades were so clear on their objectives. One that was was the attack on the eastern catholics, where believers were slaughtered in their places of worship by western catholics. Those who did so were praised by the top bloke of the WCC and promised quick routes into heaven.
That this was a power struggle between sects of the same church is a given. That doesn't stop it being a religiously motivated war. So not quite as clear cut as a jihad, but still, evidently, a religious war.
One of the religious wars that ruined life for so many in Europe for centuries was the wars started by the reformation. Again, an internal war between sects. It went on for more than a few weeks, and killed quite a few, the number varying depending on the reporter. But it is clear it was more than 2m and possibly twice that.
That's one hell of a war, fought purely, if that's the word, on religious grounds.
If the call to arms comes on religious grounds, its a religious war. It does not matter if it was a war of attrition, of acquisition or because of internal politics.
That the term is a loose one is a given, mainly because of the of the plethora of motives of the various churches that started them. They are still going on.
But let's run with your, albeit unjustifiable, definition of a religious war, one which would not have happened Without religion. So there's the reformation wars. The slaughter of the eastern catholics by the western catholic church. I could list more if you want. All the wars I know of have multiple causes. But even with your rather limiting definition, the above two wars, and those I could list, quite clearly come well within the definition.
But most of us plebs believed the rubbish dealt out by the virtually illiterate vicars and religion was a form of control. The justification for the jihands of the 12th century onwards, named the crusades, was to take possession (repossession according to the pope) of the so called holy land. There was no mention of the Moors in Spain. The reason the armies went was to liberate Jerusalem.
It was a holy war. One one side were the christians. They were out there because of what was seen as the desecration of Jerusalem by another religion. The motive of the pope is irrelevant. He used religion as the motivation. It was a holy war.
Not all crusades were so clear on their objectives. One that was was the attack on the eastern catholics, where believers were slaughtered in their places of worship by western catholics. Those who did so were praised by the top bloke of the WCC and promised quick routes into heaven.
That this was a power struggle between sects of the same church is a given. That doesn't stop it being a religiously motivated war. So not quite as clear cut as a jihad, but still, evidently, a religious war.
One of the religious wars that ruined life for so many in Europe for centuries was the wars started by the reformation. Again, an internal war between sects. It went on for more than a few weeks, and killed quite a few, the number varying depending on the reporter. But it is clear it was more than 2m and possibly twice that.
That's one hell of a war, fought purely, if that's the word, on religious grounds.
If the call to arms comes on religious grounds, its a religious war. It does not matter if it was a war of attrition, of acquisition or because of internal politics.
That the term is a loose one is a given, mainly because of the of the plethora of motives of the various churches that started them. They are still going on.
But let's run with your, albeit unjustifiable, definition of a religious war, one which would not have happened Without religion. So there's the reformation wars. The slaughter of the eastern catholics by the western catholic church. I could list more if you want. All the wars I know of have multiple causes. But even with your rather limiting definition, the above two wars, and those I could list, quite clearly come well within the definition.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff