Is Dhmini style law justifiable?

[RPRPsych]

Injustices have often been committed, that’s true, and they were against Church teaching then as now. But it should be noted that modern legal scholars tend to exaggerate the number of laws that fall under the category of pure religious discrimination.

Quite true, but then they have often been understated in the past.

Religion was a lot more central in the lives of people back then, and thus criminal associations and revolutionary groups tended to organize themselves under religious auspices and identify using religious monikers.

It’s true that some groups of (Christian) heretics often devolved into law-breakers, but I’m not sure if this ever happened with, say, the Jewish people. (Of course, there was the usual hysterical material bandied about - blood libel, “holy children” being massacred by Jews. This still exists in some circles, though the accusations are more ideological than material. Both are reprehensible.)

Thus when we see laws levied against religious minorities in medieval society, we have to be careful in assessing them: some weren’t intended to discriminate against people (like the Jews) on the basis of religious principles, but because of their revolutionary tendencies and an inability to distinguish the criminally-minded from the peaceful.

That’s an interesting thesis. I fully admit I’m not very familiar with the laws you allude to, could we have some examples for discussion? They would serve as an interesting counterpoint to the more rigid “Dhimmi”-style laws being discussed here.

And to answer the OP, no. The only divinely-sanctioned theocracy in human history was the original Kingdom of Israel. Man-made attempts to duplicate the same usually end up in misery, bloodshed or both.

 

[farnhamyrl]

I question the fairness of the situation, but then again Christians and Jews cannot claim that much moral high ground in view of the way all too many have treated badly those of differing beliefs.

 

[Kaninchen]

I question the fairness of the situation, but then again Christians and Jews cannot claim that much moral high ground in view of the way all too many have treated badly those of differing beliefs.

I think you’d have to talk more about this - perhaps giving some indication of the scale and duration of naughtiness on various sides. It’s all very well saying that nobody is innocent, it’s quite another to suggest that all are equally guilty.

 

[dzheremi]

I believe you’re conversing with a bot there, Kaninchen, as that reply is copied from reply #2 of this very thread.

Hmmm…it is a strange day when robots feign interest in interfaith relations. Better them than me, I suppose.

 

[dmar198]

That’s an interesting thesis. I fully admit I’m not very familiar with the laws you allude to, could we have some examples for discussion?

The example I was thinking of was the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabel in the late 15th century. It is clear from their pronouncements concerning American natives that they believed in freedom of religion, but here we have them excluding great masses of people from their empire seemingly on the basis of religion; how do we reconcile that? I think the answer to that question rests in the revolutionary plot that so many Jews were cooperating in. (The Catholic Encyclopedia discusses this in more depth in its article on Isabel I.) They couldn’t distinguish the revolutionaries from the peaceful, so they kicked them all out – which is obviously not ideal, but more defensible in light of what was going on than if it was done for purely religious reasons (as historians so often suggest).

 

[RPRPsych]

The example I was thinking of was the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabel in the late 15th century. It is clear from their pronouncements concerning American natives that they believed in freedom of religion, but here we have them excluding great masses of people from their empire seemingly on the basis of religion; how do we reconcile that? I think the answer to that question rests in the revolutionary plot that so many Jews were cooperating in. (The Catholic Encyclopedia discusses this in more depth in its article on Isabel I.) They couldn’t distinguish the revolutionaries from the peaceful, so they kicked them all out – which is obviously not ideal, but more defensible in light of what was going on than if it was done for purely religious reasons (as historians so often suggest).

Thanks for the reply! I agree that this is far from ideal, but in those days, people worked at a more collectivistic level, and laws tended to be painted in broader strokes. Let me do some background reading on this.

 

[M1Garand]

I am not going to go through the huge historic list, you are perfectly capable of finding examples of those on-line and in libraries, but there are for instance the pogroms that had many Jews flee to the likes of the US and the UK. There is also here in the UK the instance of the massacre of Jews in York.

As a Catholic you need to learn the truth of Christian history before you bat around the usual “Christians did it too thing”. First of all no where in the Church was there or is there a set of discriminatory legal codes that may be used against non-christians(unlike Islam and in the past Judaism). Second there are no historical examples of Church sanctioned mistreatment and murder of non-Christians solely on the bases of that groups belief system. The acts of monarchs and Protestants have all been labeled by many acts of the Church when they were not. Your history is anglophilic and inaccurate and as a Catholic you must learn the truth to counter these popular lies.

 

[M1Garand]

The example I was thinking of was the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabel in the late 15th century. It is clear from their pronouncements concerning American natives that they believed in freedom of religion, but here we have them excluding great masses of people from their empire seemingly on the basis of religion; how do we reconcile that? I think the answer to that question rests in the revolutionary plot that so many Jews were cooperating in. (The Catholic Encyclopedia discusses this in more depth in its article on Isabel I.) They couldn’t distinguish the revolutionaries from the peaceful, so they kicked them all out – which is obviously not ideal, but more defensible in light of what was going on than if it was done for purely religious reasons (as historians so often suggest).

And in both biblical and classical history the Jews were continuously involved with attempts to over throw the non-Jewish governments. They did this over and over in Roman Palestine in antiquity despite the fact that Jews were repeatedly given special privileges by the Romans. Revised history now labels this as anti-Semitic but people forget and Jews will not admit that in the past they refused to coexist with Goyim(gentiles and non-jews). They have been duplicitous in many murderous plots solely on the basis of conquest and nothing else. The Talmud is very similar in teaching to the Koran and other Muslim books on how non-Jews may be treated. This is all relevant because the evils of secular governments, monarchs and evil men has been laid at the feet of the Church by groups that oppose it. This is would be like blaming the Jews for the rise of Marxism and the subsequent Bolshevik purge of 20 million Orthodox Christians in Russia under the leadership of a Jew Leon Trotsky.

 

[Kaninchen]

And in both biblical and classical history the Jews were continuously involved with attempts to over throw the non-Jewish governments. They did this over and over in Roman Palestine in antiquity despite the fact that Jews were repeatedly given special privileges by the Romans. Revised history now labels this as anti-Semitic but people forget and Jews will not admit that in the past they refused to coexist with Goyim(gentiles and non-jews). They have been duplicitous in many murderous plots solely on the basis of conquest and nothing else. The Talmud is very similar in teaching to the Koran and other Muslim books on how non-Jews may be treated. This is all relevant because the evils of secular governments, monarchs and evil men has been laid at the feet of the Church by groups that oppose it. This is would be like blaming the Jews for the rise of Marxism and the subsequent Bolshevik purge of 20 million Orthodox Christians in Russia under the leadership of a Jew Leon Trotsky.

We Jews are just too, too naughty for words as you can find out at www.youthoughtjewswerenaughtybuttheyremuchnaughtierthanthat.com and www.havealookatthestormfronttalmud.com and other well known fonts of knowledge about the general naughtiness of Jews.

 

[M1Garand]

We Jews are just too, too naughty for words as you can find out at www.youthoughtjewswerenaughtybuttheyremuchnaughtierthanthat.com and www.havealookatthestormfronttalmud.com and other well known fonts of knowledge about the general naughtiness of Jews.

Is this a way of calling me an “anti-Semite” or are you refuting the history? You brought up the actions of Christians. I simply pointed out that this can be done by both sides. I am also addressing the diversion in this topic when it turned to the “evils” of Christians. The issue is Moslem codes against non-muslems. There is no Catholic parallel to this. Do you deny this or are you going to simply revert to inferring bigotry by putting your links to neo-Nazi sites? Please refer me to the Code of Canon law that directs Catholics to swindle, cheat, steal, and extort non-Christians. Please refer me to an encyclical by one Pope supporting the suppression of Jews any time in history.

I would point out that to this very day a Christian(nor Muslims for that matter) may not freely immigrate to Israel. This is a religion based rule to keep non-Jews out of Israel–no. Not too unlike your first post regarding what Christians “used” to do.

 

[dzheremi]

With the exception of my mother’s best friend with whom I share many lovely childhood memories, I don’t believe I’ve ever been as fond of a Jewess as I am of Kaninchen after reading that post. Those URLs had me howling with laughter.

Seriously, M1Garand, if this is the route you want to travel not only will this topic never end, but you’re likely to find yourself very unhappy and offended when it is shown to you that Catholics were equally guilty of similar or worse behavior throughout their long history. In my experience the mature and learned people of all religions can at least admit that their coreligionists too have been naughty on various occasions in the past (as the Copts who followed Peter the Reader certainly were when they murdered the Greek polymath Hypatia), as less-than-perfect behavior is not a human trait that is exclusive to any one religious group.

Personally I do not wish to travel down this road, so I will leave it at that. Well, no, I will leave it at this: The bad behavior of any one community vis-a-vis another neither relates directly to the OP nor exonerates one’s own community from facing up to its past, including its negative aspects. One thing I commonly hear (and say) is that there seems to be less transparency in this regard with certain religions (or at least their modern expressions) than with others, and for that reason before we begin to criticize those of other religions for their own failings, we should make darn sure that we know and are willing to cop to our own, lest we do a disservice to our own faith by appearing to be hypocrites.

 

[malphono]

With the exception of my mother’s best friend with whom I share many lovely childhood memories, I don’t believe I’ve ever been as fond of a Jewess as I am of Kaninchen after reading that post. Those URLs had me howling with laughter.

For some reason, the links wouldn’t open for me but, since I’ve always liked Kaninchen’s posts anyway, I’ll take your word for it.

 

[Darryl1958]

Comparisons to sharia dhimittude laws to neo-nazis and Jim Crowe laws too are apt ones, for sure.
How embedded are dhimmitude laws into the religion of Islam, its history, or the Koran itself?

 

[dzheremi]

It appears that I’m the only one who has noticed that the links are jokes, not actual websites?

Maybe if I post them without URL encoding they won’t appear in shortened form in the post.

http://www.youthoughtjewswerenaughtybuttheyremuchnaughtierthanthat.com/

^ This is not a real website (yet)

 

[M1Garand]

With the exception of my mother’s best friend with whom I share many lovely childhood memories, I don’t believe I’ve ever been as fond of a Jewess as I am of Kaninchen after reading that post. Those URLs had me howling with laughter.

Seriously, M1Garand, if this is the route you want to travel not only will this topic never end, but you’re likely to find yourself very unhappy and offended when it is shown to you that Catholics were equally guilty of similar or worse behavior throughout their long history. In my experience the mature and learned people of all religions can at least admit that their coreligionists too have been naughty on various occasions in the past (as the Copts who followed Peter the Reader certainly were when they murdered the Greek polymath Hypatia), as less-than-perfect behavior is not a human trait that is exclusive to any one religious group.

Personally I do not wish to travel down this road, so I will leave it at that. Well, no, I will leave it at this: The bad behavior of any one community vis-a-vis another neither relates directly to the OP nor exonerates one’s own community from facing up to its past, including its negative aspects. One thing I commonly hear (and say) is that there seems to be less transparency in this regard with certain religions (or at least their modern expressions) than with others, and for that reason before we begin to criticize those of other religions for their own failings, we should make darn sure that we know and are willing to cop to our own, lest we do a disservice to our own faith by appearing to be hypocrites.

Well you see thats the rub. The above bolded statement is inaccurate. However, the slander has become truth and modern history has made it ok to level such allegations against the Church even if they are untrue in most respects or out right perverted in others. I will go back to what I said show me the section of the Code of Cannon Law which advocates the things you believe were done in the name of Christianity and equal to those of Islam. Show me one encyclical from any Pope advocating the slaughter of Jews and Muslims or their expulsion from society.

 

[dmar198]

With the exception of my mother’s best friend with whom I share many lovely childhood memories, I don’t believe I’ve ever been as fond of a Jewess as I am of Kaninchen after reading that post. Those URLs had me howling with laughter.

Seriously, M1Garand, if this is the route you want to travel not only will this topic never end, but you’re likely to find yourself very unhappy and offended when it is shown to you that Catholics were equally guilty of similar or worse behavior throughout their long history. In my experience the mature and learned people of all religions can at least admit that their coreligionists too have been naughty on various occasions in the past (as the Copts who followed Peter the Reader certainly were when they murdered the Greek polymath Hypatia), as less-than-perfect behavior is not a human trait that is exclusive to any one religious group.

Personally I do not wish to travel down this road, so I will leave it at that. Well, no, I will leave it at this: The bad behavior of any one community vis-a-vis another neither relates directly to the OP nor exonerates one’s own community from facing up to its past, including its negative aspects. One thing I commonly hear (and say) is that there seems to be less transparency in this regard with certain religions (or at least their modern expressions) than with others, and for that reason before we begin to criticize those of other religions for their own failings, we should make darn sure that we know and are willing to cop to our own, lest we do a disservice to our own faith by appearing to be hypocrites.

That’s what I think too. Well-said.

Well you see thats the rub. The above bolded statement is inaccurate. However, the slander has become truth and modern history has made it ok to level such allegations against the Church even if they are untrue in most respects or out right perverted in others. I will go back to what I said show me the section of the Code of Cannon Law which advocates the things you believe were done in the name of Christianity and equal to those of Islam. Show me one encyclical from any Pope advocating the slaughter of Jews and Muslims or their expulsion from society.

Your reference to the Canon Law and papal encyclicals seems to indicate that we’re talking about two different things here. Dzheremi et. al. are not trying to say that unjust actions toward the Jews were promoted by the Church itself (at least that’s not what I’m trying to say). And a lot of what is out there on the internet and in academia is an exaggerated account of anti-Semitism by Catholics in the past.

But that aside, there is a kernel of truth somewhere in the exaggerations: not all Catholics, and not all Catholic leaders, have always been perfectly noble toward those of other religions. And before modern times you do find historical records of Catholic leaders who suppressed Jews and Muslims without justification. When this was done it was done by Catholic kings and counts more often than religious leaders, but sometimes bishops cooperated in this stuff (and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of our less-than-stellar popes have occasionally been involved too).

My point was that sometimes our modern historians misread medieval legislation and categorize more of it as pure religious discrimination than there really was, and I say this because I’ve read about examples of laws that look like they were based on religious bias if you just take them at the surface level, but if you look into them you find that they had another, more reasonable purpose, or only have the appearance of religious discrimination because they were aimed at violent Jews and Muslims but didn’t distinguish violent ones from peaceful ones.

And I would further say that because of this, when people cite a medieval law and declare that it proves that such-and-such medieval monarch supported religious discrimination, we should take that with a grain of salt, and examine the law they cite more closely in the context of the time, because it may not have been a case of pure religious discrimination. It may have been intended to thwart some criminal plot whose members identified as a religious group. There were some Jews who were involved in such groups; there were certainly some Muslims whose real goal was criminal, and there still are; and all that has to be taken into account when we examine such laws, and not label all of them as examples of religious discrimination.

All that aside, when there are authentic examples of religious discrimination in the Church’s past, the Church itself should not be blamed. All sin is against Church teaching, and religious discrimination is a sin. In all times you find Catholics who opposed religious intolerance, and you often find benign kings and rulers among the wicked ones we are more familiar with. The age of Gratian and Theodorus, who were intolerant toward pagans and heretics, also had its Valentinian, who was praised for not persecuting anybody; the age of Charlemagne had its St. Alcuin, who defied Charlemagne’s religiously intolerant laws and articulated one of the earliest medieval defenses of the principle of religious liberty; and the monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella, whose only connection to religious liberty in the eyes of modern historians was their expulsion of the Jews and the Muslims from Spain, actually defended religious liberty and promulgated it in their laws concerning the native Americans. And all that needs to be remembered by modern historians before they go off trumpeting that it was only in modern times that the Church accepted the idea of religious liberty.

 

[malphono]

Well you see thats the rub. The above bolded statement is inaccurate. However, the slander has become truth and modern history has made it ok to level such allegations against the Church even if they are untrue in most respects or out right perverted in others.

Is it untrue? Unfortunately, it’s the contrary: it’s more true than it should be.

I will go back to what I said show me the section of the Code of Cannon Law which advocates the things you believe were done in the name of Christianity and equal to those of Islam.

Canon Law was first formally codified in 1917 and then again in 1982.

Show me one encyclical from any Pope advocating the slaughter of Jews and Muslims or their expulsion from society.

And what difference would that make?

 

[dmar198]

Perhaps this timeline of Catholic statements re: religious liberty will be useful:

180 A.D. - Melito of Sardis criticized the Roman persecution which had been enacted against Christians, saying it is “not fit to be executed even against barbarian enemies.” By these words he showed that he did not think either Christians or pagans should be persecuted. This is a very pro-toleration principle. (Apology to the Emperor, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, Chapter 26, Paragraph 6)

213 A.D. - Tertullian said: “It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion—to which free-will and not force should lead us.” (Ad Scapulam, chapter 2)

308 A.D. - Lactantius said: “Religion, being a matter of the will, cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.” (De Divinis Institutionibus 5, 10)

598 A.D. - Pope Gregory the Great said: “[The Jews] should in no way suffer through a violation of their rights [by the Church].” “Rather let them enjoy their lawful liberty to observe and to celebrate their festivities, as they have enjoyed this up until now.” (Admonition of Paschasius) “During his pontificate, he put these words into practice, intervening to protect Jews from violence.” (catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4705)

624 A.D. - St. Isidore of Seville criticizes King Sisebut regarding his religious policy: “At the beginning of his reign he forced the Jews into the Christian faith, indeed acting with zeal, ‘but not according to knowledge’ [Romans 10:2], for he compelled by force those who should have been called to the faith through reason.” (History of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi, 60–61, as translated in Kenneth-Baxter-Wolf, Conquerors and Chronicles of Early Medieval Spain (Liverpool 1990) 106–107.)

787 A.D. - St. Alcuin of York said: “Faith is a free act of the will, not a forced act. We must appeal to the conscience, not compel it by violence. You can force people to be baptised, but you cannot force them to believe.” He was confronting Charlemagne over his recent decision to force Saxon pagans to be baptized or be killed, and as a result of this confrontation Charlemagne abolished the death penalty for paganism. (Needham. Two Thousand Years of Christ’s Power, Part Two: The Middle Ages. Grace Publications, 2000. p. 52.)

866 A.D. - Pope Nicholas I said: “Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force, proving that what they know in vain, is wrong. … Furthermore, violence is never in any way to be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For whatever is not from an inner desire [ex voto], cannot be good.” (Ad consulta vestra, Response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians)

1065 A.D. - Pope Alexander II said: “Although We have no doubt it stems from the zeal of devotion that your Nobility arranges to lead Jews to the worship of Christendom…you seem to do it with a zeal that is inordinate. For we do not read that our Lord Jesus Christ violently forced anyone into his service, but that by humble exhortation, leaving to each person his own freedom of choice, he recalled from error whomsoever he had predestined to eternal life, doing so not by judging them, but by shedding his own blood. Likewise, the blessed Gregory forbids, in one of his letters, that the said people should be drawn to the faith by violence.” (Letter Licet ex to Prince Landolfo of Benevento)

1201 A.D. - Pope Innocent III said: “It is contrary to the Christian religion to force others to into accepting and practicing Christianity if they are always unwilling and totally opposed.” “The one who never consents and is absolutely unwilling receives neither the reality [rem] nor the character [characterem] of the sacrament because express dissent is something more than not consenting at all.” (Letter Maiores Ecclesiae causas to Archbishop Humbert of Arles)

1274 A.D. - St. Thomas Aquinas said that Christians “[do] not indeed [wage war] for the purpose of forcing [non-Christians] to believe.” “Even if [Christian forces] were to conquer [the pagans], and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Question 10, Article 8.)

1482 A.D. - In 1482 A.D. Pope Sixtus IV sent a letter to the Spanish king rebuking him for the abuses he was committing in the Inquisition: “Provoked by the complaints of many men against this, we desire to and are bound to provide that the office [of the Inquisition] itself is duly carried out by such means that no one is unnecessarily and unjustly harmed. … In the example of [Jesus], whose vicar we are on earth (cujus vices gerimus in terris), not willing the death of sinners but rather desiring to restore their salvation, we choose to show mercy rather than to punish.” He instituted several humanitarian reforms so that the victims of abuses could find safety from abusive Inquisitors. (Papal Bull Ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam, reproduced in page 587 of Volume 1 of Henry Charles Lea’s “A History of the Inquisition of Spain.”)

1528 A.D. - St. Thomas More wrote that violence should not be used against heretics even by secular authorities, unless the heretics themselves are violent, and then only for that reason. (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)

1634 A.D. - The state of Maryland is founded by Catholics with the express purpose of being a safe-haven where religious liberty will be respected.

And so forth.

 

[dmar198]

[Post deleted because I integrated it into the previous one]]

 

[malphono]

Perhaps this timeline of Catholic statements re: religious liberty will be useful:

It’s mostly cool … until

1482 A.D. - In the next section it is noted that during the Spanish Inquisition, Pope Sixtus IV condemned the violence of the Inquisitors, and intervened on behalf of the accused.

Kind of a tepid rebuke isn’t it? With all that Papal power, one would think that the absurdity of Torquemada and the excesses of the Inquisition would have been condemned and forbidden. Instead …

And after that,he so-called “time line” goes kind of flat. There’s really nothing there at all beyond Catholic resistance to Protestant domination.