D’Souza: Atheism is the Opiate of the Morally Corrupt

[tomarin]

Hitler was not an atheist and neither was he a Christian.

but you don’t deny that he was an admirer of nietzsche, who was a militant atheist? in practice all of hitler’s actions were opposed to the christian creed, as was the movement he helped shape and define, fascism (another of the modern world’s excesses).

in fact i find nihilism, atheism and materialism to be interlocking pieces of the puzzle called modernism and it is difficult to embrace one and not the other two at some fundamental level.

 

[Mirdath]

but you don’t deny that he was an admirer of nietzsche, who was a militant atheist? in practice all of hitler’s actions were opposed to the christian creed, as was the movement he helped shape and define, fascism (another of the modern world’s excesses).

That’s a long story, actually. Nietzsche was vehemently pro-Semitic (he ended one of his later letters with the joke ‘I am just out having all anti-Semites shot’) and anti-nationalist; Hitler, of course, was the opposite.

However, Nietzsche’s sister was a Nazi. After he died, she cherrypicked and edited some of his writings into the collection ‘Der Wille zur Macht’ or ‘The Will to Power’. That is what Hitler used to create the illusion of a nationalist, xenophobic Nietzsche – a complete about turn from the reality.

Hitler himself professed to be Catholic, being without a doubt the worst example of Catholicism yet to exist. Later on he became rather less affectionate toward Christianity as it interfered with his totalitarian government.

Hitler on atheism: “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”, 1933.

It is, of course, possible that Hitler kept up a consistent lie for a very long time, but when one considers the sheer volume of his quotes on God, it’s not particularly likely. I do know how little Christians like to be associated with him – hell, we don’t want him either. I was hoping we could just ignore the elephant in the room; so now that we’ve been over it, can we please get back on topic?

 

[tomarin]

I was hoping we could just ignore the elephant in the room; so now that we’ve been over it, can we please get back on topic?

yes, absolutely, with one addendum to what you wrote: i had been operating under the assumption that nietzsche was the patron saint of nihilism, and that hitler was something like his saint paul. i’m not sure if that contradicts what you presented on hitler or nietzsche, but i will reinvestigate the matter sometime soon.

 

[Keikiolu]

…riiiiiighhhhtttttt. Atheists don’t like to beat their heads against a brick wall with circular theistic arguments…thats probably what you’re calling “giving up”.

Actually, giving up, in this context, is not continuing the conversation, and taking your ball home, because you’re “offended”.

Atheists GET their heads beaten against the walls by their own logic, then claim that they have to “put up with” beating THEIR OWN heads against the wall to be understood.

We understand you atheists perfectly…! You just don’t like it that we DO, because an atheist understood is an atheist debunked.

As for your views of atheists, they are obviously skewed in the highest degree, do you even know any atheists or anything about them that doesn’t come from a christian propoganda site?

I was an atheist only a year and a half, ok,… a year and three quarters, ago.

I progressed from a childhood of anti-father (broken family ineffectual mother) scientistic (atheistic)) childhood,. which progressed nicely into being a scared-rabbit-type depressive juvenile who saw the “wisdom” of “the gods” (polytheism) as a way to “manipulate my ‘spirits’” into giving me a semblance of a sense of control,… who grew into a deistic nature worshipper because of the nasty proliferation of “spirits” who kept “bothering” me when I’d rather them not do so,… then even that “nature” part of being a deist became overbearing as it called for silliness that I couldn’t do anything with other than laugh at,… then a return to full on atheism, as all this God stuff was obviously utter rubish and utterly ineffectual in DOING anything.

Then,… my life got HARD. I got OLD. I broke as a person without,… without “something” I didn’t know, but had a place for.

Then I thought back over what made me feel young again. What that was was considering my history, and how I loved my “people’s history” (irish), then considering why that was.

I suddenly, utterly contrary to my upbringing and my educational indoctrination, was that I loved being “european”. What was it about being “european”? It was about the basis of that civilization. What was the basis of that civilization? It was Christianity. What kind of Christianity? THE Church, which built the “foundation” of possibly the only “good parts” of what we consider “european civilization”.

So,… I did an experiment. I read about how the beliefs of this “religion” might have produced such a miracle, and then decided to “believe for a while”, much as I’d “believed for a while” with other so-called religions.

This time, my experiment paid off. Instead of leading me cleverly around in an ego-inflating circle, it had A POINT…!

As Chesterton says, “I like things with a point!”

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

And I thought (correct me if I’m wrong Mirdath) that Mirdath has stated several times in other threads that she’s agnostic, not atheist.

I can call myself an orange, but a thing is as it does, not as it says.

Agnostics ARE simply cowardly atheists. That anyone else chooses not to believe that is fine with me.

But I’ll take your bait…as for what I believe: I believe that there is no god, plain and simple. I believe that evolution holds the answers for the origin of life as science has all but proved beyond a doubt.

That’s cool. I’m not here to convert you. I’m just here to comment on the idiocy of scientism. I thank you greatly for material to play with.

I also subscribe to the philosophy of Secular humanism. Look it up on wikipedia if you need an explaination of those tenets.

That’s also nice. Doesn’t tell me much about you, of course, because what “secular humanism” really means is “I’m a baseless relativistic ethicist”, which, since it’s BASELESS, is utterly meaningless as a description of anything.

By the standard of your accusations I could call all Christians mindless hippocrits that consistantly condemn everyone who isn’t like them and that they absolutely refuse to recognize scientific evidence that doesn’t support their beliefs not matter how irrefutible that scientific evidence is.

Many Christians are hippocrits. So you got me there. But the beliefs of Christianity are fully against hippocracy.

Many Christians are “condemnation junkies”. Fortunately, only God can condemn, and we as Christians are admonished to never condemn people, but only to condemn actions. Love the sinner but battle the sin.

Christians invented science. It is recognized AS science by the Church, and, unlike the “atheist”, is not made into a religion.

The reason you hold the views you do is because you have been “indoctrinated” into the idea that science (reason) and religion are at war. They aren’t. The other reason you believe as you do, once again due to your upbringing, is because you have no respect for authority.

 

[Mirdath]

yes, absolutely, with one addendum to what you wrote: i had been operating under the assumption that nietzsche was the patron saint of nihilism, and that hitler was something like his saint paul. i’m not sure if that contradicts what you presented on hitler or nietzsche, but i will reinvestigate the matter sometime soon.

Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist; although his views sometimes coincided, he was generally a critic. He was, however, an existentialist and a humanist.

Nihilism says ‘there is no objective meaning or value to life’. If you read Also Sprach Zarathustra (an exercise I highly recommend), you’ll find that Nietzsche, while claiming ‘God is dead’, did find an objective meaning: self-transcendence. That’s what the whole ‘overman’ thing is about: humanity becoming something better than itself. It’s got nothing to do with an Eloi-Morlock style system as the Nazis claimed: everybody is a potential overman. We exist to improve.

Read Zarathustra. It’s beautiful, entertaining, insightful, and at times devilishly funny. You may well come out with a much higher opinion of Nietzsche than you hold now.

*It is true we love life; not because we are wont to live, but because we are wont to love.

There is always some madness in love. But there is always, also, some method in madness.

And to me also, who appreciates life, the butterflies, and soap-bubbles, and whatever is like them, seem to know most about happiness.

To see these light, foolish, pretty, lively little sprites flit about- that moves Zarathustra to tears and songs.

I would only believe in a God who could dance.

And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity- through him all things fall.

Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we kill. Come, let us kill the spirit of gravity!

I learned to walk; since then have I let myself run. I learned to fly; since then I do not need to be pushed to move from a spot.

Now I am light, now I fly, now I see myself beneath myself, now a god dances through me.*

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

Hitler on atheism: “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”, 1933.

Link here to the above.

It is, of course, possible that Hitler kept up a consistent lie for a very long time, but when one considers the sheer volume of his quotes on God, it’s not particularly likely.

Hitler was an atheist, because he didn’t believe in God, but, like all atheists, a god of his own making. That “place for God” will always be filled with something.

His god was much like the god of the agnostic, which is the god of “whatever works for me to mask the hole where God should be”.

He hated, publically, atheists because THEIR gods competed with HIS god. That is the basic dynamic of atheism, which is a constant warfare of superiority between inherently equal gods, which when actually applied as men do, results in “winner” gods worshipped by “winners”, and “loser” gods worshipped by “slaves”.

Atheistic thought always produces slavery.

I do know how little Christians like to be associated with him – hell, we don’t want him either.

Well, by definition, you got him, because if there are only atheists as opposed to non-atheists (Judeo-Christian Monotheists), and he doesn’t fit with the precepts of the non-atheists, where does that leave him?

I was hoping we could just ignore the elephant in the room; so now that we’ve been over it, can we please get back on topic?

To get back on topic,… the atheist fills the “God shaped hole” with his own gods, which is to “opiate” (anaesthetize) the anxiety problem of the vaccuum of the “God shaped hole”.

Hitler’s “opiate” was the god of power and personal ego.

 

[RebeccaJ]

but you don’t deny that he was an admirer of nietzsche, who was a militant atheist? in practice all of hitler’s actions were opposed to the christian creed, as was the movement he helped shape and define, fascism (another of the modern world’s excesses).

in fact i find nihilism, atheism and materialism to be interlocking pieces of the puzzle called modernism and it is difficult to embrace one and not the other two at some fundamental level.

It is well documented that Nietzche’s philosophies influenced Hitler. Though I don’t believe Nietzsche would have ever believed his philosophies would have been used in the way that Hitler used them. Some blame his sister Elisabeth, who corresponded with Hitler, for twisting his ideas after his death. The influence that Nietzche’s philosophies had on Hitler is an interesting subject on its own.

From what I have read, and looking at the people Hitler knew and associated with, he incorporated a twisted version of the ideas of Nietzsche, the occult ideas of The Thule Society, the social Darwinist ideas of Arthur de Gobineu and the racial purity ideas coming from Alfred Rosenberg and Scheubner-Richter. There are a bunch of other people, but his main ideas can be sourced back to these people and their ideas. He added all of this to a European/Catholic background that was steeped in the racism and anti-semitism of the late 19th century. He also references Luther’s anti-semitism in Meine Kampf a calls Luther a great warrior.

I don’t think there is any doubt that Hitler was a morally bankrupt person. Like all people he was complex. Though, I don’t believe he stuck to any one creed (Christian or otherwise). From what I can see, he took ideas from here and there, twisted them around sometimes, sourced them directly at other times, and used them all to justify his beliefs which were then manifested in his acts.

He was what people call today a “free thinker”. I don’t think that most people who adhere to “free thought” recognize that often the black and white gets grayer and grayer until eventually there is no right or wrong, only what one desires. Usually, those desires aren’t as ambitious or as twisted as Hitler’s.

And, I’ll address your point of nihilism, atheism and materialism. Nihilism being the point where there is no such thing as right or wrong. Nietzsche’s philosophies of Right and Wrong being nothing but social constructs. An illusion. Add that to atheism, where there is no God to define right or wrong. And it all flattens out to what is desired…ie, materialism.

 

[tomarin]

Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist; although his views sometimes coincided, he was generally a critic. He was, however, an existentialist and a humanist. …
Read Zarathustra. It’s beautiful, entertaining, insightful, and at times devilishly funny. You may well come out with a much higher opinion of Nietzsche than you hold now.

okay, i will take a look at it, if in return you will tell me your opinion of this article from “this rock” magazine that aligns his thinking with that of the culture of death: catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609fea2.asp

and if we continue on this topic, we should probably start a new thread.

 

[Mirdath]

okay, i will take a look at it, if in return you will tell me your opinion of this article from “this rock” magazine that aligns his thinking with that of the culture of death: catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609fea2.asp

‘Nietzsche and the Nietzscheans’ would be a great band name, for starters… maybe ‘Shaping the Culture of Death’ could be their debut album?

Anyway, the article’s main focus – beyond digs at Friedrich’s (admittedly considerable) ego – is his ethics, which is in fact my biggest bone of contention with him. They’re problematic at best.

Beyond that, the author seems to miss the point a good bit, both in the usual places – such as calling Nietzsche a nihilist or equating the Overman with God instead of with the next step in the human condition – and others.
Donald DeMarco:

Nietzsche illustrates the infallible goodness of the valuation of the strong in his infamous image of birds of prey devouring defenseless lambs. There is nothing blameworthy about the viciousness of the birds. They are simply enacting their nature. Who they are, for Nietzsche, is the measure of what is good.

Would you believe what the author finds so offensive is actually straight-up Aquinas?
Summa Theologica:

One opposite is known through the other, as darkness is known through light. Hence also what evil is must be known from the nature of good. Now, we have said above that good is everything appetible; and thus, since every nature desires its own being and its own perfection, it must be said also that the being and the perfection of any nature is good. Hence it cannot be that evil signifies being, or any form or nature. Therefore it must be that by the name of evil is signified the absence of good. And this is what is meant by saying that “evil is neither a being nor a good.” For since being, as such, is good, the absence of one implies the absence of the other.

The absolute worst misunderstanding in the article, though, is DeMarco’s connecting Nietzsche and Rand. The only thing those two had in common was disbelief in God. Rand’s Objectivism is a philosophy not just of ‘me first’, but ‘me only’. It’s utterly selfish – one of its main tenets is ‘charity is for the weak’.

Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly as expressed in Zarathustra, is a complete opposite. Zarathustra is compassionate and charitable, and instead of acting only for himself, he cannot be so selfish (yes, he tries) and stays behind to guide others along the way, something of a bodhisattva. Where Rand attaches no value at all to other people beyond that of convenience, Nietzsche sees in everyone a possible overman, someone to be valued and guided.

and if we continue on this topic, we should probably start a new thread.

There’s a semi-related one over in Philosophy, called ‘Has this happened?’ – but maybe you’re right

 

[nichjake]

…continued from above:

Agnostics ARE simply cowardly atheists. That anyone else chooses not to believe that is fine with me.

That’s cool. I’m not here to convert you. I’m just here to comment on the idiocy of scientism. I thank you greatly for material to play with.

That’s also nice. Doesn’t tell me much about you, of course, because what “secular humanism” really means is “I’m a baseless relativistic ethicist”, which, since it’s BASELESS, is utterly meaningless as a description of anything.

Many Christians are hippocrits. So you got me there. But the beliefs of Christianity are fully against hippocracy.

Many Christians are “condemnation junkies”. Fortunately, only God can condemn, and we as Christians are admonished to never condemn people, but only to condemn actions. Love the sinner but battle the sin.

Christians invented science. It is recognized AS science by the Church, and, unlike the “atheist”, is not made into a religion.

The reason you hold the views you do is because you have been “indoctrinated” into the idea that science (reason) and religion are at war. They aren’t. The other reason you believe as you do, once again due to your upbringing, is because you have no respect for authority.

I can’t count the number of times I thought to myself “what the …” while reading your post.

Some agnostics are cowardly atheists…but not all. Saying they all are is just a sweeping generalization. Some of them are afraid to admit their atheism and some really don’t know.

Humanism might be baseless only to someone who doesn’t see the value in the world around them without there being some supernatural god at the helm. I would think anyone with something even close to an open mind can see that humanistic values are anything but baseless. Humanistic values work for the good of humanity and the natural world around us…that is anything but baseless.

There are a lot of things that I don’t know what I’m talking about in…but this isn’t one of them. I was raised to be religious, not catholic but christian none the less so I had a fair bit of indoctrination as a child.

And I hate to burst your bubble but science pre-dates Christianity. Organized science started in Egypt and Mesopotamia around 3500 BC…possibly even before then.

I have not been indoctrinated into the idea that science and religion are at war…I’ll leave that to the fundamentalists and extremists. I see no reason why science and religion cannot co-exist. The two are not mutally exclusive.

Your assumption that I have no respect for authority is laughable. I do have respect for authority but only where its deserved. I’m not going to let any random person or institution have authority over my life…there has to be a reason, christianity does not present any reasons that are even worth considering. My upbringing was to be a god fearing politically and socially conservative christian who obeys authority without protest. I was never once “indoctrinated” with the idea that science is everything and religion is complete bull…in fact I was taught that progressive science, catholicism and secularism were the roots of all evil. I realized from an early age the stupidity in this and always weighed what I was told in both church and school very carefully…I’m quite anaytical. It wasn’t until I started college that I had the resources and freedom to pursue more information on the subjects at hand and have since grown stonger in my assertion that there is no god.

As for atheists considering science as a religion…you must have been a strange atheist. Most of the atheists I know are science geeks and we could talk your ear off about our various areas of study but its far from a religion.

But it appears we’ve gotten totally off topic…perhaps we should continue this via PMing?

 

[Keikiolu]

I can’t count the number of times I thought to myself “what the …” while reading your post.

Some agnostics are cowardly atheists…but not all. Saying they all are is just a sweeping generalization. Some of them are afraid to admit their atheism and some really don’t know.

They all “really don’t know”. The question is what it is that they don’t know?

Some don’t know how to come to a decision.
Some don’t know the meaning of truth.
Some don’t know what they’re talking about, and speak authoritatively from their ignorance.

They may be able to justify, such as by saying that it’s foolish to make a very important decision based on insufficient information, which is quite true,… yet it is a cowardly attitude. It is “not brave”.

Agnostics are actually atheists, as they may not deny the “possibility” of God, but they actively deny the ancillary things that they see as “unGodly” but which are necessary expressions of God.

Humanism might be baseless only to someone who doesn’t see the value in the world around them without there being some supernatural god at the helm. I would think anyone with something even close to an open mind can see that humanistic values are anything but baseless. Humanistic values work for the good of humanity and the natural world around us…that is anything but baseless.

That is utterly baseless, because it is based on the whim of those around at whichever time is chosen as our “epoch” under study.

Values that you see as humanistically “good” are good Christian values.

Values that you see as humanistically “good” which are actually evils are Christian evils.

Evil humanistic values fall into the same categories as the good ones, likewise.

There are a lot of things that I don’t know what I’m talking about in…but this isn’t one of them. I was raised to be religious, not catholic but christian none the less so I had a fair bit of indoctrination as a child.

OK,… that’s nice.

And I hate to burst your bubble but science pre-dates Christianity. Organized science started in Egypt and Mesopotamia around 3500 BC…possibly even before then.

Of course science predates Christianity. Science is just the application of reason to the phenomena of the world.

But the vastly accelerated advancement of science is the veritable invention of Christian civilization.

I have not been indoctrinated into the idea that science and religion are at war…I’ll leave that to the fundamentalists and extremists. I see no reason why science and religion cannot co-exist. The two are not mutally exclusive.

Hear hear…!!

Your assumption that I have no respect for authority is laughable. I do have respect for authority but only where its deserved. I’m not going to let any random person or institution have authority over my life…

That is sensible, and very good…!

The problem with it is that you deny a possibly rightful authority out of simple prejudice.

…continued below →

 

[Keikiolu]

.continued from above:

there has to be a reason, christianity does not present any reasons that are even worth considering.

Then you not only don’t know anything of Christianity’s attributes, you don’t anything of Christianity at all.

No one so utterly ignorant is anything but a curiosity of vaccuity.

My upbringing was to be a god fearing politically and socially conservative christian who obeys authority without protest. I was never once “indoctrinated” with the idea that science is everything and religion is complete bull…in fact I was taught that progressive science, catholicism and secularism were the roots of all evil.

You were raised a non-Catholic. That tells me all I need to know about your opinions about, well, veritably everything concerning the subject area of “authority”.

I realized from an early age the stupidity in this and always weighed what I was told in both church and school very carefully…I’m quite anaytical. It wasn’t until I started college that I had the resources and freedom to pursue more information on the subjects at hand and have since grown stonger in my assertion that there is no god.

You say assertion. That would be accurate usage.

You’re beliefs are obviously conflicted, because you see the value of good humanistic (humane/human) values, which can only come from Christianity or natural law, which is a cry of “God should exist but doesn’t because it hurts too much to consider that I’ve suffered while the God I want to exist has existed, so He doesn’t.”

As for atheists considering science as a religion…you must have been a strange atheist. Most of the atheists I know are science geeks and we could talk your ear off about our various areas of study but its far from a religion.

(( How can any Trekker, as I imagine all geeks to be, not believe in God…? Unthinkable…! ))

Once it claims, or it’s “adherents” claim, that it has the answers to everything, with no proof that that is true, it violates it’s own basic principle.

It is a religion because it takes sheer faith to believe that the unfounded belief that science always requires proof for belief to be valid.

You believe with faith that science has all the answers, because there is no proof that that is true.

But it appears we’ve gotten totally off topic…perhaps we should continue this via PMing?

NO,… and lose my AUDIENCE…!!?

Are you MAD…!!?

(( Start a new thread, and invite me in. ))

 

[a_priori]

Atheism makes your pupils contract

I always knew that atheism makes one myopic but I never understood the exact mechanism. Now I know. Thanks.

 

[nichjake]

.

NO,… and lose my AUDIENCE…!!?

Are you MAD…!!?

(( Start a new thread, and invite me in. ))

Oh, so you’re just in this to entertain people and attempt to drag atheists through the mud without doing anything but making personal attacks? I’m sorry but I’m more mature than that. If you really want to continue this system of you making personal attacks then me explaining how you’re wrong then fine, you make a new thread and invite me to join…but just to warn you, I have a fairly short attention span when dealing with people like you. It gets boring and I get sick of laughing at the stupidity of it all

 

[tomarin]

i created a new thread devoted just to nietzsche and whether his philosophy is nihilistic. here is the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2858885#post2858885

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*.

NO,… and lose my AUDIENCE…!!?

Are you MAD…!!?

(( Start a new thread, and invite me in. ))*

Oh, so you’re just in this to entertain people and attempt to drag atheists through the mud without doing anything but making personal attacks?

Once again,… the atheist sense of humor, if you could actually call it that, is exposed for what it really is.

Get real, dude…!

I’m not here to drag anything but atheistic ideas through the mud.

You,… I love as a brother/sister.

Atheistic ideas belong where they wish to go, which is straight to hell.

I’m sorry but I’m more mature than that.

And very perceptive (NOT) as well, beloved.

If you really want to continue this system of you making personal attacks then me explaining how you’re wrong then fine, you make a new thread and invite me to join…

Show me where I’ve attacked you, as opposed to “atheism” and “atheists”…?

but just to warn you, I have a fairly short attention span when dealing with people like you. It gets boring and I get sick of laughing at the stupidity of it all

Of course you have a short attention span…!

You’re an atheist…! Atheists aren’t interested in discussion of the basic premises and conclusions of anything. They are only interested in bashing “religion”.

Once they are actually faced with someone who fights back, they do the usual cowardly thing, and “take their ball and go home in a huff”.

If you don’t play, you lose.

Let’s see how long you can play without running home to Mama…?

It’ll be fun talking with 'ya, buckeroo…!

 

[nichjake]

Of course you have a short attention span…!

You’re an atheist…! Atheists aren’t interested in discussion of the basic premises and conclusions of anything. They are only interested in bashing “religion”.

Once they are actually faced with someone who fights back, they do the usual cowardly thing, and “take their ball and go home in a huff”.

If you don’t play, you lose.

Let’s see how long you can play without running home to Mama…?

It’ll be fun talking with 'ya, buckeroo…!

Now that I’ve thought about it some more I don’t think you’re doing anything other than making a fool of yourself by making broad generalizations and stereotypes without putting forth one bit of anything other than speculation.

As for bashing religion…I don’t bother with it because it only insults people and this forum isn’t the place for me to bash religion…that would be rude. I’ve got better things to do.

If you don’t play you simply don’t play. Its impossible to lose a game that you don’t play.

Oh, and note on my personal stubborness (which I’m sure you’ll blame on my atheism because thats all you seem to be doing)…I wouldn’t run home to mamma even if I was faced with mortal peril, my mamma is the last person I’d consider turning to.

Why is it that you seem so hell bent on condemning atheism? I get the drift that you think its a horrible horrible thing…but other than that why? Haven’t you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? I think the only thing you’re capable of doing with your present tactics is push people away from religion…which isn’t your goal is it? Take the time to point out the errors in atheism in a calm collected manor instead of spouting off incorrect stereotypes and maybe I’ll consider listening If you don’t I’m going to quit this silly little game, its pointless and only fools continue on with things that just go round and round without getting anywhere.

 

[strngrnrth]

what did the clergy do to promote an alleged witch’s rights during the inquisition?

what did the clergy do to oppose slavery?

what did the clergy do to promote gender equality?

what did the clergy do to end forced conversions into christianity?

what did the clergy do to end anti-semitism?

.

The Church didn’t start the witch trials. Laywomen
did, when strange new crop, animal and human diseases combined with a suddenly older populace (including the new phenomenon of senile dementia) panicked them. Isolation, not religion, caused them to cast about helplessly in search of a connection between the inexplicable behavior of a few old men and women and the bad things suddenly happening. The Church actually had clergy and others stand in the way of angry witch-hunting mobs to protect the unjustly accused in the beginning, and passed a law against witch hunting early in the era, saying there was no way of judging whether someone was a witch by Biblical standards. Catholic countries gradually began obeying that law. Protestant countries continued witch-hunting until churchmen in the early 18th Century put a stop to it after many long campaigns to do so by appealing to the civil governments on the same grounds.
The abolition movement in England and the USA was led by clergy, Catholic and Protestant working together in a rare show of harmony. Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists, Anglicans and Catholics, among others, made the abolition of slavery their focus in some cases at peril of their lives. Some died in the struggle.
I think it was actually here on Catholic Answers that I read a good response to the forced conversion topic. If so, it’s around here somewhere.
Anti-semitism will end when Jesus returns, along with all other hateful attitudes. Meanwhile, the Church stands in opposition to all forms of racism because racism denies the dignity of each human being. Inner attitudes cannot be changed by laws, only by choice.

 

[nichjake]

The Church didn’t start the witch trials. Laywomen
did, when strange new crop, animal and human diseases combined with a suddenly older populace (including the new phenomenon of senile dementia) panicked them. Isolation, not religion, caused them to cast about helplessly in search of a connection between the inexplicable behavior of a few old men and women and the bad things suddenly happening. The Church actually had clergy and others stand in the way of angry witch-hunting mobs to protect the unjustly accused in the beginning, and passed a law against witch hunting early in the era, saying there was no way of judging whether someone was a witch by Biblical standards. Catholic countries gradually began obeying that law. Protestant countries continued witch-hunting until churchmen in the early 18th Century put a stop to it after many long campaigns to do so by appealing to the civil governments on the same grounds.

That sounds interesting…do you know of any good sources on the subject where I could do some reading?