Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Read some history, as you seem ignorant about it. There has been Saudian type societies in "the west".

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Nov 12th, 2008 at 07:41:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Calling me ignorant is quite weak an argument.

Since you don't oblige me by showing your wisdom, I'll show you a bit of my (still humble) knowledge on the issue.

The separation of the church and faith in Europe has always been a fact. Since the Roman empire, since Emperor Julian who in 362 decreed freedom of religion, passing through Augustine of Hyppo who argued about the mystical world and earthly politics in Civitate Dei, through the London concordat, the chart of liberties, the Magna Carta, the concordat of Worms, al showing the continuous battle between church and state. The Italian wars amongst republics and papacy, the French kings, from Philip the Fair through the Valois and on, who asserted their independence of the church, through Luther, Calvin, Locke and other protestant philosophers who professed this separation and the free arbiter of the individual, until Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in the United States.
You'll find, all over the history signs of this separation, of the individual liberties and free thinking.

Parliaments existed in Europe for 1000 years now, as did universities. I wont even mention the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
The Christianism itself suffers no comparison with the Islam in terms of treatment of the Individual and dealing with the State.
Despite numerous exceptions and excesses, this is what dominated Europe for 2000 years.


Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 03:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The separation of the church and faith in Europe has always been a fact. Since the Roman empire, since Emperor Julian who in 362 decreed freedom of religion

Huh!?????

I can't believe referring to Julian the Apostate as evidence for separation of church and state, while glossing over the likes of Gratian and Theodosius, is not an intentional provocation from you.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 07:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry to disappoint.
Julian is an example, the first one come to mind. I don't have time to do a comprehensive research, so what you see here is my own knowledge - I welcome rational argumented criticism. What about Gratian?

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Valentian was the sole non-Christian in a long line of intolerant Arian and Athanasian Christian Emperors (both Eastern and Western Roman), and also the sole seeking to re-establish freedom of religion instead of making imperial edicts to constrain this or that group. In other words, not the rule but the exception -- which is shown by his epithet in history books, "the Apostate".

Gratian was the Western Roman Emperor who, under the influence of the bishop of Milan Ambrosius, brought the final tilt of the balance of power between Athanasians and Arians with strict decrets. He found an ally in Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius, who would eventually become a joint Emperor, and start an unparalleled persecution also under Ambrosius's influence, which made the victory of the Athanasians (i.e. early Nicean Creed Christianity) final in the Roman Empire. (Though not overall: the Germanic tribes that would take over the Western Empire were converted by Arians, and it took more than two centuries for a real final victory.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(Upon checking, "Ambrosius" was a wrong guess at the English form -- it's "Ambrose".)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Despite numerous exceptions and excesses, this is what dominated Europe for 2000 years.

It's rather the opposite -- despite numerous exceptions and moderations, utter religious intolerance ruled Europe for most of the past 2000 years. It was easier to be Christian in Arab-ruled Egypt, in Moorish Spain, and especially Ottoman Southeastern Europe than to be Muslim in the Crusader states, in the areas taken by the Spanish Reconquista, or the Habsburg one. Not to mention Jews, especially in Renaissance-time Spain and England.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 at 07:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I understood the expression "Saudian society" in terms of citizen rights, not rights of other religions.
The church was often putting pressure or being intolerant, but was in no way entrenched with the state as Saudian societies. There is a world of difference between a society ruled by church and one ruled by feudals (with the church rearing its head behind).

I'll be glad to discuss differences between Christianism and Islam when this thread ends, though.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 05:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
was in no way entrenched with the state as Saudian societies.

How are the First Council of Nicea, Roman imperial edicts, royal anointments, land grants to bishops and monasteries, blasphemy laws, royal rules on churchgoing (especially at the times of [forced] conversions), the outlaw state of excommunicated, crusades, the 'division of labour' in inquisition, and state-proscribed religious education examplkes of lack of entrenchment with the state just like for the Saudis?

There is a world of difference between a society ruled by church and one ruled by feudals

Both middle age Europe and present-day Saudi Arabia is ruled by feudals and the church at the same time. In fact, in some aspects at least pre-Reformation Western Europe was worse than the Saudis today: there is no top religious authority in Saudi Arabia, allowing the feudals some leevay in playing one cleric against another. (The Americans also attempted that game in Iraq, though that did not bring them much in the end, did it.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 06:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In what way is the council an example of church entrenched with the state in oppression? That was all about faith and ecclesiastic issues.

Persecution of christians had barely ended a few years before, btw.

Royal anoitments? Well how about Philip the Fair sending Nogaret to draw the Pope outside by beard, or so I heard, after Boniface VIII declared his supremacy over the secular rulers. There was never no ayatollah in Europe.

Aspects, aspects. You're theorizing and picking what suits you. We should discuss this in detail. But then you probably did before.
You don't say a word about parliaments and univesities, they don't seem to interest you, or about the Rule of Law in Western Europe for a very very long time. Never governing by the Bible.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Fri Nov 14th, 2008 at 07:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In what way is the council an example of church entrenched with the state in oppression?

It was a council called for by the Emperor to establish a dogma, which can then be enforced as state religion. (Which he then ditched in older age, but that's another issue.)

Well how about Philip the Fair

You realise that the Avignon Papacy is in no way an example of a separation of church and state... not to mention the assembly of French bishops Philip IV called to support his position in that tax debate.

There was never no ayatollah in Europe.

There was, in the Papal State... but you are confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia there. There is no ayatollah with a political position above the Saudi royals -- nor is there in any other Muslim state other than Iran.

You're theorizing and picking what suits you.

...is what I can tell about you. First you take the only non-Christian in the middle of dozens of mad 4th-century Christian Emperors to prove separation of church and state, then take Iran among dozens of Muslim countries as representative (even while the debate got narrowed down on Saudi Arabia after a previous cherry-pick of yours), and you also cherry-pick Philip IV as a(n ill though-out) 'counter-argument' against the generla practice of royal anointment by clergymen (and the principle of religious justification for feudal power that's behind it).

You don't say a word about parliaments and univesities

I could, but what I said suffices to negate your denial of Saudi-style ties between church and state in Chistian countries.

Parliaments emerged as institutions of the feudal class, and similar institutions existed in the Muslim world, too. Their democratisation coincided with the church's loss of influence (something that happened against its own will and with its active opposition), e.g. for example the French Revolution. Universities on the other hand emerged in a religious context, and for a long time participated in establishing and guarding church dogma. (Their roles in combatting 'heresies' is well known, also for example in the case of Joan of Arc.)

Rule of Law

I did in fact refer to laws. Read back. In fact, the rule of law until not long ago in most places and the Saudi situation today is very similar: it exists in theory, but less in practice, with a fight for its application in courtroom cases. In fact, internationally, the rule of law still doesn't hold -- or else, a lot of kidnapping CIA agents, not to mention Bush et al would sit in prison.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sat Nov 15th, 2008 at 08:38:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The council you mentioned had nothing to do with the state being Christian-fundamentalist in its oppression of the society, in the sense certain muslim ones are.

The Avignon papacy and the concordat of Worms are examples that it was the secular power ruling, and not the church, it was the rule of law in the sense that there were written rules and Common Laws in place.
The way you bring the argument to extreme by claiming there is no rule of law today is an exaggeration of the same kind as linca's bringing into discussion the Saudian society.

Because we are not debating all aspects of society, but the relation of the individual (women in particular) with the religious authorities.
The original comment was about the situation of women  and mentioning the Saudian society in that context.
I said that this was fallacious argumenting.
The situation of women in Western Europe cannot be compared to that of the women in certain muslim states, like Saudi Arabia - or Iran.

I'd like a few examples of universities, parliaments, or renaissance enlightenment in the Saudian societies. A few links will suffice.
(claiming that they exist and I am the ignorant will not suffice though, I'm beginning to get a bit fed up with lesson giving and patronizing from your side).

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot frança) on Sat Nov 15th, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
23 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
112 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments

Occasional Series