My Take on History

[Lilburne]

@Laughing Man

Weren’t you asking what brought about the road to the high middle ages literature?

Right, and I’m saying the rediscovery of Plato and Aristotle could not have brought about that road, because it did not occur in the Dark Ages, as you claimed.

@Laughing Man

In the sense that it did not allow for the complete rule of the state, but the church itself would of been happy to allow its complete rule.

The question was not whether the church wanted complete rule. The question was whether it was a consistently opposing force against the throne; you said it wasn’t.

@Laughing Man

Do you have any proof of this assertion?

Again, the industrial revolution antedated the widespread study of political economy as a distinct science. That’s just a matter of public record.

[Juan]

@Lilburne

One should not read religious bias in this historical interpretation. Suffice it to say that this author is not himself Catholic.

Oops. I did miss that, sorry.

Still, the catholic church was a transnational state - a theocracy.It was the official/state religion of the roman empire (other religions were banned and its members persecuted) and it was a partner of the european states that came into existence after roman rule stopped.

It never checked political power, it was one of the biggest, or the biggest political power in europe.

[Juan]

@Solid_Choke

If there is more competition in the political realm, then freedom is advanced to a higher degree (relative to less competition).

The existence of the Catholic Church caused greater competition in the political realm.

Thus, the Catholic Church caused freedom to advance to a higher degree (relative to no Catholic Church).

I’m tired as hell, I hope that made sense

It makes sense, but I think there are two related objections to that line of reasoning

1. Political competition doesn’t necessarily bring more freedom. War, for instance, is the quintessential example of political competition - and war hardly advances individual freedom.

2. Even if the theory sounds somehow plausible (say, two mafia gangs being better than one mafia gang), that doesn’t mean the theory fits the actual facts.

It’s possible to be better off living under the rule of a ‘benevolent’ monopolistic mafia instead of being able to choose between two warring mafias. Not to mention that ‘customers’ of states or warlords don’t really get to choose their masters.

In other words, political competition and economic competition are different beasts.

[Juan]

@Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

In the state in which things were, through the greater part of Europe, during the tenth,
eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, and for some time both before and after that period, the constitution of the church of Rome may be considered as the most formidable combination that ever was formed against the authority and security of civil government,
as well as against the liberty, reason, and happiness of mankind, which can flourish only where civil government is able to protect them.

I don’t think the part about civil government is right and yet Smith’s views on the catholic church can’t be so easily dismissed…

[Lilburne]

@Juan

@Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations

In the state in which things were, through the greater part of Europe, during the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, and for some time both before and after that period, the constitution of the church of Rome may be considered as the most formidable combination that ever was formed against the authority and security of civil government, as well as against the liberty, reason, and happiness of mankind, which can flourish only where civil government is able to protect them.

I don’t think the part about civil government is right and yet Smith’s views on the catholic church can’t be so easily dismissed…

Without anything more than bald assertion in that quote, we can’t be sure that there’s anything backing up that position more than the anti-Catholicism common in Britain at the time.

[Lilburne]

@Juan

@Lilburne

One should not read religious bias in this historical interpretation. Suffice it to say that this author is not himself Catholic.

Oops. I did miss that, sorry.

Still, the catholic church was a transnational state - a theocracy.It was the official/state religion of the roman empire (other religions were banned and its members persecuted) and it was a partner of the european states that came into existence after roman rule stopped.

It never checked political power, it was one of the biggest, or the biggest political power in europe.

Sorry Juan, you’ll have to offer more than that to convince me this isn’t just your anti-Catholicism talking.

[zefreak]

Lilburne, I am also interested in your conversion to theism, although I understand if you wish to keep your privacy or discuss it in a more private capacity.

[Juan]

Lilburne

I’m sorry but I see your praise of the catholic church as totally unsubstantiated pandering to catholics for whatever personal reasons you have.

I don’t need to ‘convince’ you that the catholic church was the official religion of the roman empire or that it persecuted pagans among other people. It’s basic history, as opposed to catholic propaganda.

[Lilburne]

@zefreak

Lilburne, I am also interested in your conversion to theism, although I understand if you wish to keep your privacy or discuss it in a more private capacity.

[:|]

What conversion to theism? My only conversion was from being a militant atheist to being an atheist who hates militant atheism. That’s what I meant in the quote Juan referenced.

[Juan]

Oh I thought you were now some sort of theist. So you are a militant pro-catholic atheist ?

[Lilburne]

@Juan

So you are a militant pro-catholic atheist ?

LOL! Actually, that’s not far from the mark. [B]