JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Archives


MEDIEVAL-RELIGION@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION Home

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION  June 2004

MEDIEVAL-RELIGION June 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: reply to Martin

From:

Cecil T Ault <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:06:52 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (257 lines)

medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

P.S.....You forgot the "Great Red Scare" of the 1920's, the Dies
 Committe of the 1930's and Joe McCarthy of the 1950's.  I mean, all
them Commies out there.  We gotta do something!!!  yrs, t. ault

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:46:03 -0400
  Richard Landes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and
>culture
>
>At 05:43 PM 6/17/2004, you wrote:
>
>>medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and
>>culture
>>
>>With respect, despite Tom's and George's and others' call for ending
>>this thread, I believe a response is required.
>
>agreed.
>
>>The inquisition has a bad reputation for good reason: it defies every
>>aspect of our modern culture -- the one in which we get to write our
>>free opinions in public.
>>
>>r
>>
>>Every aspect?  Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin, the
>>Ayatollas of Iran, the governments of Vietnam and North Korea, . . .
>>the
>>last time I checked, these were phenomena of our own age.  Some of
>>them
>>had, in the 19820s and 1930s, highly placed, Pulitzer-Prize-winning
>>apologists writing for the New York Times and other defenders
>>entrenched
>>in the universities.  All of the tyrants listed above suppressed free
>>speech with oceans of blood.    Some did so in the name of religion,
>>some in the name of "scientific hsitory," others in the name of
>>racial
>>destiny, but all in the name of one ideology or another.   And
>>hate-speech laws in a number of western countries look suspiciously
>>like
>>efforts to suppress unpopular traditional religious beliefs.
>
>agreed.  i shd clarify.  My definition of "modernity" is the effort
>to live
>according to the principles of equality before the law.  Such
>principles
>exist well before the modern (the ten commandments and biblical civil
>and
>criminal legislation apply equally to all, the Athenians tried it,
>calling
>it isonomia, the apostolic communities tried radically egalitarian
>variants, etc.).  What you describe in the anti-modernism of say the
>fascists, or the hyper-modernism of the communists, represents a kind
>of
>toxic abreaction to the consequences of trying to make principles of
>freedom and (legal) equality work (Fromm called it Fear of Freedom).
> I
>think the same thing is going on in the MA after the tenth cn, and
>that the
>inquisition of the high MA also represents a violent reaction on the
>part
>of the religious elite to the prospect of losing control.  Modernity
>seems
>like chaos to those who believe that social order can only come from
>the
>top down.
>
>as for the intellectuals who covered up for stalinists (Shaw and
>Sartre),
>maoists, and khmer rougeniks (Chomsky), i agree with you that they
>represent one of the great moral failures of our time -- esp of the
>left
>which claims to have such high moral standards, a scandal which the
>left's
>failure to really acknowledge may account for its current
>romanticization
>of religious fascism of the islamic variety.  but then, that really
>is off
>topic.
>
>>It is precisely this kind of blindness to the bad reputation of our
>>own
>>era that can lead to distortion when we study the Middle Ages.
>
>i don't think so.  the point about our era, so far, is that these
>efforts
>to impose salvation on an unwilling population regularly fail (altho
>the
>damage they do in trying is immeasurable), and the dominant voice,
>the one
>that produces the kinds of intellectual, scientific, technological
>advances
>that characterize our age, come from "liberal" cultures.  Some of the
>scholars who care about these matters connect the inquisition to
>these
>modern forms of madness (Cohn, RI Moore).
>
>>Nothing
>>I wrote called for a whitewash of the inquistions and I resent the
>>implication (see below) that I did so.  The Vatican press release
>>expressly called for an honest and balanced assessment.  The unargued
>>assumption that nothing coming from the Vatican can be balanced or
>>honest, the assumption that the Borromeo book, because it was
>>Vatican-sponsored, could only be a whitewash is rank anti-Catholic
>>prejudice.
>
>now now, let's not get polemical.  i don't think the Vatican's
>incapable of
>serious self-criticism, and i don't assume that whatever they produce
>is a
>whitewash.  But i'm not a Jesuit, so when the Vatican says see light
>grey
>and i see charcoal grey, i'm not ready to jump thru that hoop.
>
>>  Would not the same pre-judgment about a publication from a
>>Jewish or Muslim institution--that the publication could only be
>>self-serving whitewash--elicit an outcry from the defenders of
>>"tolerance"?   I don't get it--you assume automatically, in
>>pre-judgment, that things emanating from the Vatican can only be
>>pre-judiced.
>
>this is not automatic.  i just think that rather than jumping on
>revisionist scholarship to trumpet how many fewer people the
>inquisition
>burned (and by the way, witches were never a major issue in the MA --
>it's
>an "early" modern thing), i think we shd be hearing about the scandal
>of an
>inquisition that tortured and burned people for their faith surviving
>and
>thriving for so many centuries.  When i see that, i'll say, it's not
>a
>whitewash, but serious self-criticism.  Your rhetoric ends up making
>any
>form of criticism, intolerance.  Come on, the Church is above all an
>institution with claims to moral significance, no?  Let's hear some
>moral
>discourse, not damage control.
>
>>I did not say "this stuff was okay back then" and I do not appreciate
>>having that sentiment attributed to me.  Frank Morgret has, in
>>another
>>post, filled in much of what I meant by "context,"namely that beliefs
>>about truth and the consequences of falsehood then were different
>>from
>>what many "enlightened" people today claim to believe--except when
>>their
>>own ideological ox is really being gored and then, not surprisingly,
>>violaters of the Truths of their own modern ideologies can find
>>suddenly
>>themselves being crushed by legalized violence.  Yesterday it was the
>>Buddhists of Tibet, right now it is Falun Gong and Evangelical and
>>Catholic Christians in China and the Sudan and Saudi Arabia or
>>Pakistan
>>or the Copts in Egypt, tomorrow it may well be . . . .
>>
>>As noted above, given the secular and religious inquisitions of the
>>20th century, some of them alive and well as I write this, I am not
>>at
>>all sure that we have made that much progress and that is why I
>>cautioned against a self-righteous air of modern superiority and
>>urged
>>reading medieval phenomena as much as we can within a medieval
>>context--at the very least, being aware of how we both differ from
>>and
>>resemble medieval people.
>
>this is a critical argument.  As the scholar who edited a volume on
>"tolerance in the reformation" put it: "tolerance was a loser's [ie
>minority] creed."  This is very much akin to what both Thucydides'
>Athenians and Nietzsche argued, that people only want fairness when
>it's to
>their advantage, and as soon as they have power, forget it.  I
>understand
>jewish and christian principles as arguing against that
>'gravitational
>pull' as it were "Do not oppress the stranger for you were strangers
>in
>Egypt.".  That is, one can and shd resist the tendency to abuse
>power, if
>not always, much more often than the vicious players of a nasty
>con-game
>do.  So the idea that because you held divine truth to be so crucial
>that
>you could torture and burn people to death to assure its dominion was
>"the
>medieval context" then i'd say you're creating a straw man of
>"understandable but be(k)nighted" folk who just don't get what we
>moderns
>do.  in the inquisition the "bad guys" won (by our standards), but
>that
>doesn't mean everyone just assumed, that's how you behave with truth
>claims.
>
>the american revolution is the first time in xn history that
>tolerance was
>the winner's creed.  it demanded much, and yielded much.
>
>before we assume that everyone had to behave the "medieval" way, let
>me
>suggest that within the jewish community, altho there were similar
>notions
>about how important divine truth, and certain specific verbal
>formulations
>of divine truth, there was a far more developed culture of
>"machloket"
>(disagreement, see M. Fisch, Rational Rabbis) that had a far greater
>capacity to absorb differing interpretations than did xnty.  (cf.
>rabbinic
>discussions (mishnah/talmud) with church father exchanges, 2-6th cns
>CE).
>Now you can say that that's because they didn't have sovereignty, and
>it's
>partly true.  But most cultures that lose sovereignty rapidly lose
>their
>cultural resilience as well.  Whatever the reason, this devt of a
>culture
>of dispute in which contradiction was prized, shd inform our judgment
>of
>both what constitutes "anachronism" in matters of religious
>tolerance, and
>our understanding of the high correlation btw inquisitorial xnty (if
>i
>might use that term to describe those who put their backs into these
>religious persecutions) and anti-judaism.
>
>r
>
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
>to: [log in to unmask]
>To send a message to the list, address it to:
>[log in to unmask]
>To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
>to: [log in to unmask]
>In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write
>to:
>[log in to unmask]
>For further information, visit our web site:
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager