Did Freedom of Religion mess up Christianity?

[exnihilo]

The last state church to be disestablished was Massachusetts 1830s and South Carolina circa 1790 or there about.

Some states only allowed Protestants to hold office even into the 1800s …so you had freedom to worship as you wanted unless you wanted to hold public office …that is not the Wall of separation that has ended Baccalaureate services at graduations and the singing of Christmas carols, Nativity Scenes and Christmas trees instead of holiday trees

Key facts. The first amendment applied to the federal government. The US was a federation of independent states. Or it was at least until Lincoln’s war. Lincoln having won most people have a hard time understanding US history.

Actually, I stand firm on the solid ground of the Constitution. The establishment clause had nothing to do with the State upholding the interest of a church, it was about the establishment of a National Church. This is absolutely clear from the context and the experience of the founding fathers. There is no other interpretation possible unless we are to insert our 21st understandings upon the 18th century, which we cannot do legitimately.

Not until 1947 was the bastardization of the Constitution that lead to the lies of today on this subject.

Actually I’d say it was Lincoln’s war and the 14th Amendment which didn’t actually pass. The southern states who voted for the 13th, ending slavery, didn’t vote for the 14th as did other Union states like Delaware and Oregon. The solution was the federal government declared the southern states no longer existed and the amendment passed. It imposed military districts. It then said in order to become a state again you had to vote for the 14th amendment. Democracy at the point of a gun.

 

[GKC]

How about I re-phrase it this way.

“From the time of Constantine to the Reformation certain Kings, rulers, and officials worked with some representatives of the church including Popes, Cardinals and Bishops to enforce the degrees of the church.”

I agree that there have always been men and women of faith and character in the church. Particularly in the Monastic societies. However, recorded history shows the policy of the church(those Kings and Church leadership) was to stamp out anyone it considered to be a heretic by any means possible. This included forced recantation, imprisonment and even death. This also included military action by both secular and papal forces against heretical groups.

When Protestant Kings came to power they did the same thing to Catholics, often with the support and urging of the Protestant church leadership. Society stills feels the sting of the religious oppression (from both sides) and violence of that era. Sadly, the violence was more about the authority of the kings and power of the state than it was about faith in Christ. Religion was the excuse kings and queens used to rally their forces against other kings and queens.

We also had religious intolerance in the Colonies prior to the Revolutionary war. Those Puritans were actually nasty to other religions. In particular to Quakers and Catholics. Maryland went back and forth on the treatment of Catholics until the Revolutionary war.

It was that backdrop that led the Founding Fathers to include the establishment clause and free exercise clause in the Bill of Rights. They didn’t want the religious wars and persecutions that had engulfed Europe to continue in the new nation. While we have still had our share of religious intolerance at local levels we have managed, to this point, to stay away from the protracted hatred and violence between Catholics and Protestants such as what transpired in Ireland.

Pretty good summary, all in all.

 

[BroIgnatius]

BroIgnatius:

Quote:
Actually, I stand firm on the solid ground of the Constitution. The establishment clause had nothing to do with the State upholding the interest of a church, it was about the establishment of a National Church. This is absolutely clear from the context and the experience of the founding fathers. There is no other interpretation possible unless we are to insert our 21st understandings upon the 18th century, which we cannot do legitimately.

Not until 1947 was the bastardization of the Constitution that lead to the lies of today on this subject.

Actually I’d say it was Lincoln’s war and the 14th Amendment which didn’t actually pass. The southern states who voted for the 13th, ending slavery, didn’t vote for the 14th as did other Union states like Delaware and Oregon. The solution was the federal government declared the southern states no longer existed and the amendment passed. It imposed military districts. It then said in order to become a state again you had to vote for the 14th amendment. Democracy at the point of a gun.

What? How on God’s green earth as your comment, quoted here, have anything whatsoever to do with my comment, also quoted above?

 

[exnihilo]

What? How on God’s green earth as your comment, quoted here, have anything whatsoever to do with my comment, also quoted above?

You claimed that something happened to constitutional law in 1947. I’m saying it happened in 1861 or 1868. The 14th amendment is the tool by which federal rights, such as no established church, are imposed on the state.

 

[BroIgnatius]

You claimed that something happened to constitutional law in 1947. I’m saying it happened in 1861 or 1868. The 14th amendment is the tool by which federal rights, such as no established church, are imposed on the state.

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country’s Bill of Rights to State law. Prior to this decision the First Amendment words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.

This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Your judgement coming from afar does no justice to a time and place that is never our own.
Sir Thomas More reluctantly took the position of Chancellor to the King. Posters have correctly corrected your post, so I will refrain from repeating what has already been posted.

Actually there was one poster who provided a link to make the case that he wasn’t as bad as some have made him out to be. It’s fully understood that he was in favor of stomping out differing thought on the matter and was responsbile for several deaths and numerous arrests. His sins were plenty and should not be brushed aside. My judgement of him has been more than fair.

Sir Thomas More exercised his authority under the orders of his secular King. In short you place blame where there is none to blame, when it comes to the final authority of capital punishment in this period.

The just following orders defense is not justifiable. As I noted in his Utopia he was quite agreeable with the notion of a totalitarian state, so the idea that he was against the idea of using force to stomp out religious ideas that differed from his and the state’s holds no water.

Saint Thomas More refused to acknowledge and objected to his secular King to possess or usurp Church authority (Keys) from the Church Jesus Christ founded and gave the (authority) Keys to Kingdom of heaven Peter.

And this is something I pointed out in my previous post. His problem was not in the use of force to abolish the notion of thinking differently about religion than him. His problem was only when that power enforced a religious position that differed from his. His endorsement of tyranny should not be ignored.

You see, Saint Thomas More only had one eternal King of Kings who is Jesus Christ and he recognized his eternal King’s authority on earth in St. Peter, and Peter’s apostolic successor, who presides on the Chair of Peter as Vicar of Christ on earth.

You see, someone who works as an attorney in Saudi Arabia only had one eternal King, Allah (praise be his name). He recognized his eternal king’s authory on Earth in the clerics who say it is wrong to be an apostate or to speak ill of Muhammed. It is only right that he does what he does so that those who would have words against the faith be put to death.

When Saint Thomas More was met with a decision to chose a secular King over his eternal King. Saint Thomas More chose eternal life in Jesus Christ.

You are mistaken to think, that St. Thomas More objected to his secular King, because his secular King came against his personal Catholic faith.

No, Saint Thomas More made a personal Life or death decision, to never deny Jesus Christ and His Vicar on earth the Pope. Which his secular King was forcing Saint Thomas More to confess.

To the post that compared St. Thomas More or Christian Martyrs to the way of Muslim suicide bombers. St. Thomas More paid his executioner before being beheaded, St. Thomas More forgave his executioner. This poster should learn more about true Catholic Martyrs and Saints before jumping to false conclusions or comparisons.

Peace be with you

By the same reasoning the 5 men who Thomas More had a hand in killing are also martyrs. No, they were not martyrs to the Catholic faith, but they were martyrs to Jesus Christ just as you say Thomas More was. They made a choice against an oppressive state to spread what they believed to be the truth.

Wouldn’t you agree that Thomas More helped to create 5 martyrs?

 

[Duane1966]

For it is perfectly true that as a Crown agent, and then as Lord Chancellor, More did pursue heretics.** He never presided at a heresy trial (no layman could) and he never condemned anyone to death for their religious beliefs.** In his autobiographical Apology, he refuted the charges of torture and maltreatment of suspects that Wolf Hall reports, accusations that, through John Foxe’s hostile elaboration in his Elizabethan propaganda work, Actes and Monuments, nevertheless persisted down the centuries.

In an age when all but one of the bishops had perjured themselves by signing up to the Royal Supremacy, More died rather than swear an oath he did not believe. We can therefore trust his solemn insistence that no one in his custody for heresy had ever suffered “so much as a flip on the forehead”, much less been tortured. Yet in the 1520s, he was undoubtedly the most active agent in Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey’s campaign against heresy. In collaboration with the gentle humanist Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall, More led a series of nocturnal raids on London houses and warehouses in search of forbidden Lutheran books and, as was routine in that age, he imprisoned and interrogated suspects in his house in Chelsea.

In the early 1530s, he wrote thousands of pages of ferocious polemic against the Reformation, defending the execution of stubborn heretics in language whose violence can make even the most ardent admirer quail. Heretics at the stake, he insisted, were “the devil’s stinking martyrs”, not men of conscience but “mischievous persons” driven by “desire of a large liberty to an unbridled lewdness”. He insisted that unrepentant heretics were “well burnt” and went “straight from the temporal fire to the eternal”.

In the age of Islamic State and al-Qaeda, we are deeply suspicious of anyone who thinks God wants us to kill other people, whatever the motive.** But More’s world was not our world. By the standards of his age, he was a compassionate and just man.** But he never questioned a legal system that imposed the death penalty not only for heresy or murder, but even for quite minor thefts. And like most of his contemporaries, he believed that heresy was a kind of spiritual murder.

He viewed the preaching of heresy as we do the peddling of hard drugs, a moral cancer that ruined lives, corrupted the young, dissolved the bonds of truth and morality, and undermined the fabric of Christian society. He was horrified by the religious wars tearing Europe apart in the 1520s, shattering the vision of Christian harmony that he and Erasmus had promoted in their writings. Like Erasmus, More blamed those wars on Luther and his followers, and he feared that the spread of Protestantism would wreak the same havoc in England.
He believed he had a duty to persuade, coax and, if necessary, coerce heretics to abandon their beliefs – or at least to stay silent about them. A man must indeed follow his conscience. But if a misguided conscience led him to propagate evil opinions, he must either repudiate those errors when they were pointed out to him, or take the consequences.

Several recent biographers have found the apparent contradiction between the genial humanist and saint of tradition, and the implacable opponent of heresy, impossible to resolve. So they have cut the Gordian knot, rejecting as pious fiction the testimony of Erasmus and of More’s sixteenth-century biographers that he was as attractive as he was brilliant, and substituting instead the portrait of an unreconstructed bigot and sadist, in the words of Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell, “a blood-soaked hypocrite”.

But the portrait that emerges is too dark. It is impossible to imagine the sour-faced More played by Anton Lesser stepping in among the Christmas players at Cardinal Morton’s court – as the young More did – to improvise his own hilarious role; or writing the 100 “merry tales” that light up even the most serious of his English works; or cracking the last great joke of all, as he climbed the rickety scaffold to his death: “I pray you, Master Lieutenant, see me safely up, and as for my coming down, you may leave me to shift for myself.”

More was neither blood-soaked nor a hypocrite, but he was a man of his times, not of ours.- Eammon Duffy

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

lanman87;14816346]How about I re-phrase it this way.

“From the time of Constantine to the Reformation certain Kings, rulers, and officials worked with some representatives of the church including Popes, Cardinals and Bishops to enforce the degrees of the church.”

I am never in a position to critique ones’ own personal opinion here. I only object to the broad stroke of generalizing centuries of Church history into one opinion. No Pope, Cardinal or Bishop ever has the power to “enforce the degrees of the Church” what ever they may be? upon no one.

Suffice it to say, From the time of Constantine, many Catholic Bishop’s, Popes objected to Constantine and any secular government who tried to interfere with Church teachings, divine revelations and her divine commission on earth. So much so, that when Roman Emperor’s began to try and interfere with the Church, many Church members including Saints left or rejected their post as Patriarch’s and went into Monastic life. This has been the general rule of the Church since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. To keep the Sacred divine teachings and Sacred Apostolic Traditions from being infected by outside sources of any kind. More on this below.

I agree that there have always been men and women of faith and character in the church. Particularly in the Monastic societies. However, recorded history shows the policy of the church(those Kings and Church leadership) was to stamp out anyone it considered to be a heretic by any means possible. This included forced recantation, imprisonment and even death. This also included military action by both secular and papal forces against heretical groups.

I can tell by reading your post’s, that you are very well read in anti-Catholic rhetoric. I promise you; there does not exist any Church policy “to stamp out anyone it considered to be a heretic by any means possible”.

Please allow me to inform you, in an unofficial capacity, of how the Church functioned and functions unchanged since Apostolic times that deals with your subject of heretics.

1. The Church never ever condemned any unbeliever as a heretic. Let us be clear here. By your summary, misleads this reader to falsely believe “the Church” condemned all unbelievers, (Christian, Pagan or other) as heretics. Just at the reading of your post sounds unbelievable.
2. The only heretics the Church ever excommunicated and or bind and loosed any heresy or heretic, was to her OWN MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, who were Catholic trying to infect the Apostolic faith. Just as well, She accepted the latter back into the fold, to those who repented.

I respect your good intention to clarify and elaborate in such a discussion. Please dont take my response in the negative. I am only offering you a perspective of Church history that get’s missed, much of the time.

Respectfully yours in Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mike from NJ;14818023]
You see, someone who works as an attorney in Saudi Arabia only had one eternal King, Allah (praise be his name). He recognized his eternal king’s authory on Earth in the clerics who say it is wrong to be an apostate or to speak ill of Muhammed. It is only right that he does what he does so that those who would have words against the faith be put to death.

From what you revealed here in your posting’s, I can only respond in keeping with the OP and the historical subjects discussed here.

Every and any nation, kingdom or tribe that mixes its secular politics with religion, History proves, is always at war with itself or with others.

There exist today only one religious leader in the whole world who is free of secular powers, and that is he who presides in the Chair of Peter the Pope.

When all religious leaders in history to the present, who prostituted itself with secular powers, finds itself at War and is never at peace with itself or others.

Peace be with you

 

[GKC]

Duane,

By my reading in the Tudor period, yep.

As to the observation that one should not be overly censorious if someone in the 16th century acts, in some ways, as if he were living in the 16th century, these are familiar words, indeed.

But a small weakness in the presentation might be found in this observation: " A man must indeed follow his conscience. But if a misguided conscience led him to propagate evil opinions, he must either repudiate those errors when they were pointed out to him, or take the consequences" Said consequences being death, if required. John Guy’s book on More has a discussion on this contradiction, as to conscience.

Still, times change, and other contradictions flourish. And, still, a salute to Eamon Duffy, and let’s all read STRIPPING OF THE ALTARS.

 

[lanman87]

I am never in a position to critique ones’ own personal opinion here. I only object to the broad stroke of generalizing centuries of Church history into one opinion. No Pope, Cardinal or Bishop ever has the power to “enforce the degrees of the Church” what ever they may be? upon no one.

My contention is that in many cases the secular authorities acted on behalf of the Popes, Bishops and Cardinals to imprison or kill those the church considered “heretics”. Keep in mind, because Catholicism was the state religion, heresy was both a crime against the church and a crime against the state. If a Bishop found someone guilty of heresy then the state would punish the person for the crime of heresy.

This would include folks like Wycliffe (who volunteered to go under house arrest instead of escalating the charges against him) and John Huss (who was burned at the stake).

The Waldensians were attacked in various ways for over 400 years. In 1211 80 of them were burned at the stake for heresy and in 1487 Pope Innocent VIII issued a Bull calling for the extermination of the Waldensians. In response Alberto de’ Capitanei archdeacon of Cremona organized and launched a crusade against the Waldensians. In April of 1655 around 1700 Waldensians were massacred by the Duke of Savoy because they refused to convert to Catholicism.

William Tyndale was convicted of heresy and in 1536 he was strangled and his body burned at the stake…

There is example after example of the church finding someone or a group guilty of heresy then the state carrying out the punishment due to the church/state relationship.

Suffice it to say, From the time of Constantine, many Catholic Bishop’s, Popes objected to Constantine and any secular government who tried to interfere with Church teachings, divine revelations and her divine commission on earth. So much so, that when Roman Emperor’s began to try and interfere with the Church, many Church members including Saints left or rejected their post as Patriarch’s and went into Monastic life. This has been the general rule of the Church since the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. To keep the Sacred divine teachings and Sacred Apostolic Traditions from being infected by outside sources of any kind. More on this below.

Yes, the church had a love/hate relationship with the state. It depended on the attitude of the current King/Queen and how loyal they were to the church.

I can tell by reading your post’s, that you are very well read in anti-Catholic rhetoric. I promise you; there does not exist any Church policy “to stamp out anyone it considered to be a heretic by any means possible”.

I haven’t been reading anti-catholic rhetoric. I’ve been reading history books. I would agree that today there is not any policy to stamp out heretics by any means possible. However, in the pre-reformation church there is a clear pattern of the church (or lay Catholic Rulers with support of the church) attempting to stamp out heretics by force, if needed.

Please allow me to inform you, in an unofficial capacity, of how the Church functioned and functions unchanged since Apostolic times that deals with your subject of heretics.

1. The Church never ever condemned any unbeliever as a heretic. Let us be clear here. By your summary, misleads this reader to falsely believe “the Church” condemned all unbelievers, (Christian, Pagan or other) as heretics. Just at the reading of your post sounds unbelievable.

I never addressed pagans or other. I’m stating that any Christian thought that wasn’t Catholic was dealt with severely by the church and/or Catholic Kings/Queens (with full support of the Bishops). This severe punishment went up to and including death to those who refused to recant. Jews and other religions weren’t considered heretics. However, they had fewer rights and in some cases where banished from Kingdoms if they refused to convert. This was the case in the Spanish Inquisition where Jews and Muslims were ordered to either convert to Catholicism or leave Spain.

1. The only heretics the Church ever excommunicated and or bind and loosed any heresy or heretic, was to her OWN MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, who were Catholic trying to infect the Apostolic faith. Just as well, She accepted the latter back into the fold, to those who repented.

And yet the Waldensians hadn’t been Catholic for 400 years and were still being attacked by Catholics.

I respect your good intention to clarify and elaborate in such a discussion. Please don[t take my response in the negative. I am only offering you a perspective of Church history that get’s missed, much of the time.

Respectfully yours in Peace

When I started to investigate Catholicism I had an long conversation with a man who has a PhD in Ecclesiastical History with an emphasis on the Pre-Nicean church. He gave me some great advice. He told me not to read history books written by theologians. They will try and paint history with the brush of their theology. He told me to read history books by historians. Historians report what happened instead of trying to prove their theology is correct. That is what I’ve been doing. Needless to say, it has been an interesting study. History is messy in general and I’ve found History of the Church is equally messy.
[/quote]

 

[GKC]

My contention is that in many cases the secular authorities acted on behalf of the Popes, Bishops and Cardinals to imprison or kill those the church considered “heretics”. Keep in mind, because Catholicism was the state religion, heresy was both a crime against the church and a crime against the state. If a Bishop found someone guilty of heresy then the state would punish the person for the crime of heresy.

This would include folks like Wycliffe (who volunteered to go under house arrest instead of escalating the charges against him) and John Huss (who was burned at the stake).

The Waldensians were attacked in various ways for over 400 years. In 1211 80 of them were burned at the stake for heresy and in 1487 Pope Innocent VIII issued a Bull calling for the extermination of the Waldensians. In response Alberto de’ Capitanei archdeacon of Cremona organized and launched a crusade against the Waldensians. In April of 1655 around 1700 Waldensians were massacred by the Duke of Savoy because they refused to convert to Catholicism.

William Tyndale was convicted of heresy and in 1536 he was strangled and his body burned at the stake…

There is example after example of the church finding someone or a group guilty of heresy then the state carrying out the punishment due to the church/state relationship.

Yes, the church had a love/hate relationship with the state. It depended on the attitude of the current King/Queen and how loyal they were to the church.

I haven’t been reading anti-catholic rhetoric. I’ve been reading history books. I would agree that today there is not any policy to stamp out heretics by any means possible. However, in the pre-reformation church there is a clear pattern of the church (or lay Catholic Rulers with support of the church) attempting to stamp out heretics by force, if needed.

I never addressed pagans or other. I’m stating that any Christian thought that wasn’t Catholic was dealt with severely by the church and/or Catholic Kings/Queens (with full support of the Bishops). This severe punishment went up to and including death to those who refused to recant. Jews and other religions weren’t considered heretics. However, they had fewer rights and in some cases where banished from Kingdoms if they refused to convert. This was the case in the Spanish Inquisition where Jews and Muslims were ordered to either convert to Catholicism or leave Spain.

And yet the Waldensians hadn’t been Catholic for 400 years and were still being attacked by Catholics.

When I started to investigate Catholicism I had an long conversation with a man who has a PhD in Ecclesiastical History with an emphasis on the Pre-Nicean church. He gave me some great advice. He told me not to read history books written by theologians. They will try and paint history with the brush of their theology. He told me to read history books by historians. Historians report what happened instead of trying to prove their theology is correct. That is what I’ve been doing. Needless to say, it has been an interesting study. History is messy in general and I’ve found History of the Church is equally messy.

Three comments.

Albigensians.

Read history preferably by historians. But read in depth and from all historically respectable opinions. You need to see the subject in the round.

History is indeed messy, being full of people, and things like that. One of my most common observations.

 

[steve_b]

I’ve been studying the history of Christianity for a few months now. It is clear that a major culture shift occurred, starting around the time of the reformation and continuing even to today… The desire for self determination and personal freedom became paramount in many European countries. This was carried over to the New World and ultimately emerged in the Constitution of the United States where separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion became the law of the land.

While some religious freedoms had occurred in parts of Europe generally each nation had a national church but in the more liberal states granted some freedom to those who didn’t participate in the state religion. The result was that in the 18th Century you basically had (among non-Catholics) Lutherans, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quakers, Moravian and Anabaptist. You also had the State Churches of England and Scotland. Methodist was still part of the Anglican church until after the Revolutionary war.

So from the time of the reformation until the birth of the United States you had maybe 10 Protestant denominations (the Puritans had fizzled out). After the United States was formed and instituted Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State there was an explosion in denominations, most of them splits from the 10 or so in existence in 1776, and most started in the USA. We also had the return of Gnostic beliefs, Arianism and the development of cults and pseudo Christian movements. We have also had the development of Pentecostal/Charismatic churches which is now the fastest growing group of Christians in the world.

My baptist heritage is one of a strong support for Separation of church and state. Baptist were strong supporters of being able worship according to the dictates of a personal conscious. They saw the church/state combination as oppressive against life and liberty.

I’m curious as how all of this is viewed from a Roman Catholic perspective.

So the question becomes, is Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State a good thing for Christianity? Is it a good thing for society?

In the beginning, there was animus between State and Church. Nero for example (in the 50’s and 60’s) tried to eliminate the Catholic Church in the Roman empire. Paul was beheaded in Rome under Nero. Peter was crucified upside down in Rome on Vatican hill, under Nero. That place is where Peter is buried and the Vatican is built today. In the beginning, the Catholic Church was under severe persecution from the State. Until Constantine made the Catholic Church legal, it was part of every day life to persecute and execute Catholics for their faith for the previous 300 years…

Constantine’s action, was the beginning of freedom of Religion. As in, Catholics could exist among the pagans without persecution.

Therefore, freedom of Religion is not what messed up Christianity. Disobedience to and from the authority that Jesus put in place, is what “messed up Christianity”.

Jesus made the following prayer before ascending back to heaven. John 17:20-23 . (that’s what Jesus wants) so everyone should want that also.

Do you see even a pin hole possibility of division allowed there? No. Yet look at what history has shown with respect to divisions. Protestantism is division from Our Lord’s Church, on steroids. And the consequence for that division is all spelled out in scripture, 1500 years before Protestantism was even a thought. Division from Our Lord’s Church is disastrous for one’s soul. I’ve given the scriptures describing that info many times before in posts.
example #24
Ianman:

Would you like to go back to a society where the RCC had the ability to stamp out non-RCC teaching by making non-RCC teachings illegal?

When did that happen? Be specific

 

[Duane1966]

But a small weakness in the presentation might be found in this observation: " A man must indeed follow his conscience. But if a misguided conscience led him to propagate evil opinions, he must either repudiate those errors when they were pointed out to him, or take the consequences" Said consequences being death, if required. John Guy’s book on More has a discussion on this contradiction, as to conscienc.

I don’t think it’s a contradiction. If there is nothing wrong with the death penalty when it is applied to people for following their consciences in other areas of life, when they propagate evil, then I fail to see the contradiction just because all of a sudden it is for religious reasons.

In that time period, you did not house criminals at the expense of the state for long periods at a time. That was considered ridiculous. Heresy was considered treason. People are offended when they hear that heretics were told to stop disseminating their views, or face the consequences. Heresy is preaching an untruth. If I was a teacher, and I was constantly teaching 2 + 2 = 5, and refused not to teach it, no one would have a problem with my removal from my job. But if I’m just following my conscience, why should I be removed?

What if I’m a heroin dealer, and my conscience says it’s okay? Now the stakes of my propagation of evil is higher. And if I don’t see the evils of my ways? If I make it plain that the second I am released from prison I will follow my conscience and go back to dealing heroin, surely you have no problem with the state incarcerating me til my death. Lifelong incarceration was not an option back then.

And when our very souls are at stake when we follow heresy? Surely their are no higher stakes.

 

[GKC]

I don’t think it’s a contradiction. If there is nothing wrong with the death penalty when it is applied to people for following their consciences in other areas of life, when they propagate evil, then I fail to see the contradiction just because all of a sudden it is for religious reasons.

In that time period, you did not house criminals at the expense of the state for long periods at a time. That was considered ridiculous. Heresy was considered treason. People are offended when they hear that heretics were told to stop disseminating their views, or face the consequences. Heresy is preaching an untruth. If I was a teacher, and I was constantly teaching 2 + 2 = 5, and refused not to teach it, no one would have a problem with my removal from my job. But if I’m just following my conscience, why should I be removed?

What if I’m a heroin dealer, and my conscience says it’s okay? Now the stakes of my propagation of evil is higher. And if I don’t see the evils of my ways? If I make it plain that the second I am released from prison I will follow my conscience and go back to dealing heroin, surely you have no problem with the state incarcerating me til my death. Lifelong incarceration was not an option back then.

And when our very souls are at stake when we follow heresy? Surely their are no higher stakes.

It certainly is going to depend on that chronological difference in what is permissible as to conscience and what is heresy and what any institution is permitted to do about heresy, as they define it. In More’s day, in his society, conscience was not extendable to a difference of opinion and practice as to religion, for reasons considered sufficient in the day. 500 years later it certainly is so extended (not without limit, but beyond what More would have accepted). The contradiction is with regard to More’s popular image, in our culture, as a man for all seasons, who upheld conscience as supreme against authority, as we would understand it today. Guy’s book, which I recommend, addressed the MFAS movie image of that and what More actually thought was within the purview of a personal conscience. More was a man for all seasons, in some respects, but a man for his season, in others. Times change.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I don’t think it’s a contradiction. If there is nothing wrong with the death penalty when it is applied to people for following their consciences in other areas of life, when they propagate evil, then I fail to see the contradiction just because all of a sudden it is for religious reasons.

In that time period, you did not house criminals at the expense of the state for long periods at a time. That was considered ridiculous. Heresy was considered treason. People are offended when they hear that heretics were told to stop disseminating their views, or face the consequences. Heresy is preaching an untruth. If I was a teacher, and I was constantly teaching 2 + 2 = 5, and refused not to teach it, no one would have a problem with my removal from my job. But if I’m just following my conscience, why should I be removed?

What if I’m a heroin dealer, and my conscience says it’s okay? Now the stakes of my propagation of evil is higher. And if I don’t see the evils of my ways? If I make it plain that the second I am released from prison I will follow my conscience and go back to dealing heroin, surely you have no problem with the state incarcerating me til my death. Lifelong incarceration was not an option back then.

And when our very souls are at stake when we follow heresy? Surely their are no higher stakes.

That’s cogently argued. On a side issue, though, are we sure incarceration for life was not practised?

 

[Duane1966]

That’s cogently argued. On a side issue, though, are we sure incarceration for life was not practised?

You got me there. And if it was, then my argument is not so cogent.

 

[Picky_Picky]

It certainly is going to depend on that chronological difference in what is permissible as to conscience and what is heresy and what any institution is permitted to do about heresy, as they define it. In More’s day, in his society, conscience was not extendable to a difference of opinion and practice as to religion, for reasons considered sufficient in the day. 500 years later it certainly is so extended (not without limit, but beyond what More would have accepted). The contradiction is with regard to More’s popular image, in our culture, as a man for all seasons, who upheld conscience as supreme against authority, as we would understand it today. Guy’s book, which I recommend, addressed the MFAS movie image of that and what More actually thought was within the purview of a personal conscience. More was a man for all seasons, in some respects, but a man for his season, in others. Times change.

They do indeed. And it seems to me actually to demean figures from the past if we try to pretend they were heroes by today’s standards rather than by their own — because such pretence is never weatherproof. More is substantial enough to stand consideration as he was, rather than as a mythical perfect being.

 

[lanman87]

When did that happen? Be specific

See post #62

Post #77

and Post #89

 

[GKC]

They do indeed. And it seems to me actually to demean figures from the past if we try to pretend they were heroes by today’s standards rather than by their own — because such pretence is never weatherproof. More is substantial enough to stand consideration as he was, rather than as a mythical perfect being.

So say I, as well.