Crusades were not Evil

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

Not exactly. From the time of Constantine forward (with the exception of Julian) non-Christians were subjected to the same kind of pressures to convert as were Christians under Muslim “toleration”–their worship (sacrifice) was increasingly banned, Christians (especially clergy) were given finacial benefits, pagans were subjected to periodic outbreaks of mob violence to which Christian imperial authorities turned a blind eye, unofficially Christians were favored for lucrative administrative positions, and so forth. Likewise, other coversions–such as the conversion under Clovis of the Franks–while not the product of conquest, were certainly compelled from the top down.

Things like this went on within the latter Roman Empire, but we also know that for the first 300 years, Christianity grew strongly in spite of persecution.

Even afterwards, we must be wary of accepting the view that somehow Christianity was “forced” on the peoples of Europe. The vast number of conversions came from missionary activity with missionaries going into pagan areas unarmed and unprotected. Think of St Patrick, St Columba, St Aidan, St Augustine, Sts cyril and methodius, the evangelisers of the Goths, and the norsemen. There were occasions when the King converted and others followed but is this much different from conversions today in Africa and Asia, where mass conversions are certainly not forced.

How much did Christians tolerate Muslims in Spain, when Christians slowly reconquered the Iberian peninsula?

Not very much. But in Spain, Muslim populations represented a security threat of major proportions.

One could argue that modern liberalism grew out of an Enlightenment that was often (though not always) pretty hostile to Christianity (especially Catholicism). Many enlightenment thinkers looked, in fact, to the pagan past (republican Rome and democratic Athens) for thir political models, not to Christian precedents.

Again, I would say this widely-held view is in part a symptom of the re-writing of history to deny a Christian contribution to anything good. But is modern liberal-democratic society really copying Greece and Rome? Greek democracy was very limited, and excluded women, helots and slaves. Rome became an absolutist tyranny very early on.

The key concepts that all people are basically equal, that evryone deserves to be treated as we would like to be treated, and that we must not undervalue the weak, are **Christian ** concepts - unknown to classical Greece and Rome. These principles gave birth to the concept of human rights, long before the enlightenment. Magna Carta was drawn up in 1212, largely by churchmen, parliaments and trial by Jury come from the same period. The arbitrary power of rulers was always limited by Christian principles, upheld by the Church.

Moreover, modern pluralistic democracies have really only established themselves in the last century or two in the west. The fact this has occured in the West MAY be because of Christianity, or because the west also experienced other profound changes, such as scientific and industrial revolutions. Maybe pluralistic societies emerged in the west in spite of rather than because of Christianity. I’m not saying that is the case, but I do questions the logic that because pluralism came about in the west, it must be linked specifically to Christianity.

Full democracies in nation states are fairly recent, but there were republics in city states in Italy and Germany in the Middle Ages. Even in unitary States like England and France, individual towns established some form of elective rule to cover local affairs. Nearly every western state had some form of parliament that presented people’s views directly to the ruler. The principles of Christianity and its moral teachings meant that individual rights were built into the system.

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

Wait a minute–Algeria has been Muslim for 1300 years, how is it that there were 2 million Christians living there only 50 years ago? The numbers may suggest that for a long time Muslims DID in fact tolerate Christians, and that only recently has there emerged a more militant strand of Islam that is driving out Christians en masse. In genral, though, I agree with you on this point.

Algeria is a special case, in that a Million of those Christians were French settlers, expelled after independence. Local christians grew in number under French rule. There were still large numbers after Independence but hostility and persecution have caused nearly all to leave in the past 30 years.

But the question I posed was if the situation was that different between the medieval Muslim and medieval Christian worlds. … What I am saying is that I do not believe Islam has a monopoly on this sort of behavior.

No. But it is deeper in Islam than most other religions. Islam teaches that the non-Islamic lands are the House of War, and commands jihad on all Muslims. Muslims have a duty to conquer the world. However, any Muslim who changes his religion must be killed. Unlike most other faiths, Islam can only be fully practised under Islamic Sharia Law. State and Religion must be united. And Islamic Law puts heavy restrictions on members of other religions.

This is why Muslims have such trouble with other religions. Look at the Phillipines, Thailand, Kashmir, India, Chehnia, Russia, Armenia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Palestine, East Timor, Indonesia. All these trouble spots are where Islam brushes up against other Faiths.

 

[Philip_P]

Hold on a second - the Western nation states are hardly the only example of representative democracy. For instance, the Iroquois Confederacy in North America was very democratic. Very violent and hostile toward those outside the confederacy, but internally remarkably democratic nonetheless. Also, Christianity is hardly the only religion with a “golden rule.” In fact, most of the world’s major religions have something akin to this. Is this an argument against Christianity? Far from it. Rather, it’s a darn good argument for natural [ethical] law. Consider, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some have argued that this is merely an imperialist imposition of Western values. Usually, though, these same critics are defenders of female genital mutilation and other abhorrent “cultural” practices. In truth, what the virtually universal acceptance of documents like the Universal Declaration point to is the validity of the natural law written upon every human heart. Christianity may be the fullest expression, but it certainly does not hold a monopoly.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

Again, I would say this widely-held view is in part a symptom of the re-writing of history to deny a Christian contribution to anything good. But is modern liberal-democratic society really copying Greece and Rome? Greek democracy was very limited, and excluded women, helots and slaves. Rome became an absolutist tyranny very early on.

This is, well, inaccurate at best–and I have a certain amount of expertise in this area, at least. First of all, by “Greek” democracy I assume you mean Athenian democracy–and of course the Athenians had no helots (that was a particularly Spartan institution). Yes, Athenian democracy did not include women–and neither did just about any modern democracy until right around the twentieth century. Yes, Athens had slaves, and so did the United States, whose democracy was still steeped in liberal enlightenment ideals.

Rome did not become an “absolutist tyranny” early on–it was a republic for 500 years before becoming a monarchy. In practice, the republican form of government was an aristocracy since voting was weighted toward the wealthy, but all Roman citizens could vote regardless of property. Romans citizens (and their Athenian counterparts) certainly possessed as much (almost certainly more) political power and had at least as many rights as the serfs and peasants of the middle ages.

Yes, modern liberal democratic societies (at least some) are modeled directly on Greece and Rome. Read Polybius Book 6 (on Roman institutions) then look at the US constitution. Enlightenment and classical liberal thinkers were fascinated by the Greco-Roman world, especially Athens and republican Rome.The very concept of citizenship is thoroughly Greco-Roman.

Axion:

The key concepts that all people are basically equal, that evryone deserves to be treated as we would like to be treated, and that we must not undervalue the weak, are **Christian ** concepts - unknown to classical Greece and Rome. These principles gave birth to the concept of human rights, long before the enlightenment. Magna Carta was drawn up in 1212, largely by churchmen, parliaments and trial by Jury come from the same period. The arbitrary power of rulers was always limited by Christian principles, upheld by the Church.

Greeks and Romans certainly had these very concepts; whether they applied them to the same degree or in the same way is a matter of debate. One of the core values of the Classical Greek world–Athens or otherwise–was maximum equality. Another related value isonomia, equal treatment under the law. That should sound familiar. One of the key features of Roman citizenship was the equal treatment under and protection by Roman law. Athens and Rome had popular assemblies.

Oh yeah, Rome and Athens both had trial by jury. In particular, Athenian juries (manned by common citizens drawn at random–again, that’s a pretty modern concept) were seen as an important safeguard of democracy. Much of medieval Europe operated under a caste system and nobles and commoners certainly were not treated equally, either de jure or de facto.

Axion:

Full democracies in nation states are fairly recent, but there were republics in city states in Italy and Germany in the Middle Ages. Even in unitary States like England and France, individual towns established some form of elective rule to cover local affairs. Nearly every western state had some form of parliament that presented people’s views directly to the ruler. The principles of Christianity and its moral teachings meant that individual rights were built into the system.

Yes, there were republics in Renaissance Italy, and they based their governments on ancient models–Athens and republican Rome were the preferred models. The ruling elite of these republics revered the independence of the classical polis/civitas and shunned what they saw as tyranny (which included foreign states and often the papacy). In the Roman world, even in the era of the emperors, all towns had local asemblies and senates/town councils to deal with local affairs.

These concepts were NOT the product of Christianity, though they certainly evolved over time to incorporate Christian principles.

We have had various exchanges on a couple of threads, and neary always I have agreed with your GENERAL arguments–which usually posit that Christianity gets unfair historical treatment (Christianity is blamed for all ills and credited for no advances, while the crimes of the enemies of Christianity are ignored, etc.). But I do think that in your apologia you go too far in the opposite direction. To read some of your posts one would think that Christians commited no crimes, that all good things were the product of Christianity, and that all non-Christian societies have been debased, criminal, and incapable of civilization. Let’s be a little more even-handed.

 

[Axion]

Vox Borealis:

Yes, modern liberal democratic societies (at least some) are modeled directly on Greece and Rome. Read Polybius Book 6 (on Roman institutions) then look at the US constitution. Enlightenment and classical liberal thinkers were fascinated by the Greco-Roman world, especially Athens and republican Rome…

I’m not really talking about the detailed nuts and bolts of having a Senate and a House. I am talking about why the idea was accepted that democracy, and a legal basis of human rights was considered the best system.

Yes. When Americans decided to have a kingless democracy, they looked back to Athens and Rome (which were the artistic and cultural ideals of the enlightenment period) for ideas on how to run one. (The US system is also the British system frozen at its state in 1760, but with elected King and Lords.) But why have a democracy at all? If it was just to copy Greece and Rome, then these lands ran Kingdoms, Dictatorships and other forms of Government for a far greater amount of their existence.

The reason WHY a democracy with protections for the citizen was thought better, is something that emerged from the Christian world view.

The very concept of citizenship is thoroughly Greco-Roman

Citizenship is avery ancient concept that goes back to tribal societies.

One of the core values of the Classical Greek world–Athens or otherwise–was maximum equality. Another related value isonomia, equal treatment under the law. That should sound familiar. One of the key features of Roman citizenship was the equal treatment under and protection by Roman law. Athens and Rome had popular assemblies.

Roman law actually treated people very differently as to their class - but this is rather irrelevant to the main point, which is why Christian societies developed into free societies with the concepts of progress, equality and human rights, while others didn’t.

Oh yeah, Rome and Athens both had trial by jury. In particular, Athenian juries (manned by common citizens drawn at random–again, that’s a pretty modern concept) were seen as an important safeguard of democracy. Much of medieval Europe operated under a caste system and nobles and commoners certainly were not treated equally, either de jure or de facto.

Trial by Jury in Rome was a hit or miss affair. It could be used if the magistrate or Governor thought it would be convenient or rid them of a difficult decision, but it was not a right, and more often the magistrate or Governor passed sentence alone.

In the Roman world, even in the era of the emperors, all towns had local asemblies and senates/town councils to deal with local affairs.

Yes. but these senates were subject to the Roman Governor, just as the Roman senate was to the Emperor.

These concepts were NOT the product of Christianity, though they certainly evolved over time to incorporate Christian principles.

I have to disagree there. The key concepts that all people are basically of the same value before God, that everyone deserves to be treated as we would like to be treated, and that we must not undervalue the weak, are distinctly **Christian **concepts. Classical Greece, Rome, the Islamic World did undervalue the weak. They did run systematic slave societies that persisted and were codified as part of the natural order, and they had no concept that EVERY other person needs to be treated as we would like to be treated. Christianity did not always live up to its principles but those principles were there, and came back to bite people - like the American slavers, when they slipped from them.

We have had various exchanges on a couple of threads, and neary always I have agreed with your GENERAL arguments–which usually posit that Christianity gets unfair historical treatment (Christianity is blamed for all ills and credited for no advances, while the crimes of the enemies of Christianity are ignored, etc.). But I do think that in your apologia you go too far in the opposite direction. To read some of your posts one would think that Christians commited no crimes, that all good things were the product of Christianity, and that all non-Christian societies have been debased, criminal, and incapable of civilization. Let’s be a little more even-handed.

What I am doing is putting a view that is very little taught now - that Christianity is at the ROOT of our modern free and fairly equal society - other than, as many would misrepresent matters today - a force that somehow stood in the way of these things. I do not think Christians committed no crimes, or that all non-christian societies were entirely debased. But I have to put my evidence forward strongly in challenging a commonly-accepted viewpoint…

 

[Philip_P]

Axion:

What I am doing is putting a view that is very little taught now - that Christianity is at the ROOT of our modern free and fairly equal society - other than, as many would misrepresent matters today - a force that somehow stood in the way of these things. I do not think Christians committed no crimes, or that all non-christian societies were entirely debased. But I have to put my evidence forward strongly in challenging a commonly-accepted viewpoint…

I appreciate what you’re trying to do, but to my mind the goal in history should be to put forward the most COMPLETE view possible. I don’t think this is necessarily done by the strenuous promotion of one view at the expense of another. For instance, to claim that “Christianity is at the ROOT of our modern free and fairly equal society” is somewhat of a distortion - better to show how Christianity is A root, a deep and important root, but a root alongside other roots and contributors. Both glossing over shortcomings and downplaying achievements, of ALL history’s actors, is to distort history and give us an incomplete view.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

The reason WHY a democracy with protections for the citizen was thought better, is something that emerged from the Christian world view.

This is demonstrably untrue, since the Athenians believed profoundly that their democracy was the best for of government that best protected the citizenry, 500 years before Christianity. Also, in the Christian era monarchies have dominated, not democracies. Indeed, a very distinctive form of monarchy–divine right absolutist monarchy–was best expressed in the Christian era in early modern Europe. Is this part and parcel of the Christian world view? Philip is right, you are special pleading and not giving a complete historical analysis.

Axion:

Citizenship is avery ancient concept that goes back to tribal societies.

I question this statement–the relationship between citizen, rights, political power, and obligation is alsmost certainly expressed first in the Greek polis. But in any case, the notion of citizenship appears to have been lost for the better part of the Christian era. Medieval peasants were subjects, not citizens.

Axion:

Roman law actually treated people very differently as to their class…Trial by Jury in Rome was a hit or miss affair. It could be used if the magistrate or Governor thought it would be convenient or rid them of a difficult decision, but it was not a right, and more often the magistrate or Governor passed sentence alone.

You conflate 1000 years of Roman history, and present a highly distorted picture of Roman citizenship, citizen rights, and provincial administration. There was a great deal of change from the Republican period to the period of the Emperors (end even within that period). And by the way, WHEN were Romans treated differently under the law according to class? You need to be more specific. By the middle republic, legal differentiationsbetween patrician and plebeian disappeared. In the middle empire there did emerge differences in legal privilege between Hosnestiores and Humiliores. As I pointed out, medieval commoners were treated differently under the law than were nobles, so I am not sure what this statement would prove anyway.

Axion:

Yes. but these senates were subject to the Roman Governor, just as the Roman senate was to the Emperor.

Highly innacurate, especially for the Republican period. I suggest you look at Richardson, Hispaniae and Kallett-Marx, Hegemony to Empire, both of which discuss the domain of Roman governors in the republican period. You make some strong arguments, but your knowledge of Roman history–at least to judge from these threads–is a bt underdeveloped.

Axion:

I have to disagree there. The key concepts that all people are basically of the same value before God, that everyone deserves to be treated as we would like to be treated, and that we must not undervalue the weak, are distinctly **Christian **concepts. Classical Greece, Rome, the Islamic World did undervalue the weak.

Aha, this is the key point. I will accept for the purposes of argument that equality before God is a Christian concept. But this very tenet JUSTIFIED secular political inequality throughout the Christian era. The same way that many who post on these threads note that men and women are equal but different, and that god has different roles for each to play–so too did medieaval thinkers believe, by and large, that political power should not be shared. Those who ruled were to rule, those who toiled were to work, but they were all equal according to God. It took, among other things, the rediscovery of Greco-Roman political theory to challenge this dominant view. This is not to say, as Philip notes, that Christianity did not contribute to modern democracies. But Christianity alone cannot explain the emergence of modern democracies.

 

[IsaacSheen]

I think this is a great discussion.

Vox Borealis,
You’ve had some really good points and I agree with them all, I think maybe our application is slightly different. There is definately a truth and I think someday Christ will set me straight.

Thank you for the great responses.

I do wonder though. Did St. Michael turn the other cheek with Lucifer? Or did he throw his >you know what< out? And does this have any relevance to this discussion?

 

[Vox_Borealis]

IsaacSheen:

I think this is a great discussion.

Vox Borealis,
You’ve had some really good points and I agree with them all, I think maybe our application is slightly different. There is definately a truth and I think someday Christ will set me straight.

Thanks! I can only hope He sets me straight, too!