Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence

[Bells]

I get it. This is not a discussion, this is a power play ...

You started the thread Wynn. It was clear fairly early on that that was your intention.

 

[Gustav]

nonsense
wynn just likes to deconstruct shit...perhaps...sometimes... to ludicrous proportions
nothing wrong with being earnestly muddled

on the other hand, to see trolls crawling out of sci's woodwork at every turn screams pathology

 

[GeoffP]

I suppose your intention isn't to find out the truth about God.
The lack of such intention shapes your contributions here ...

Ah. And Wynn the Deconstructionist disappears, and Wynn the Theist reappears. Gustav, are you watching?

Do you believe that other people owe it to you to accept your judgment of their stance?

I'll end this line of inquiry here: I'm not sure what this tack has to do with anything. Acceptance is personal. Fact is impersonal.

on the other hand, to see trolls crawling out of sci's woodwork at every turn screams pathology

Funnily enough, I thought the same thing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

Wait.. so now you are claiming that the rules and the laws set down in the Bible are not religious?

Erm... laws aren't ''religious'', they serve a purpose for society. You will find laws in every single society, culture, and sub-culture.

I think a more pertinent question you should answer is thy the Bible even has anything about killing homosexuals?

What a silly question.
Why do laws state that a minor can't buy alcohol, ciggy's, and porno mags, over the counter?

Or why is it prohibited to have sex-intercourse on the high street?

Why is it against the law to break into someones house and take things without their permission?,

Go figure.

Of course God exists. So do fairies and goblins at the bottom of my garden. Or are you saying fairies and goblins do not exist? How do you know this?

Thanks for proving your lack of understanding.

Well since you are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to redefine religion and religious beliefs...

I'm neither defining or ''redefining'' anything.
I'm asking YOU to define it, and so far you've only come to agree with a proffesional, secular understanding of the word. I dare say if you asked the same proffessionals to define ''reggea music'', they would say that it is a form of music which originated in the carribean island of Jamaica, a blend of African, Latin, and N.American popular music. :rolleyes

But not to worry, statements like the above, are full of revelation.
You can't hide your ignorance.

He has answered your qosts and showed quite a bit of understanding. If you choose to play dumb and say 'I don't understand', it's not his fault but your own.

So it's my fault if he cannot make himself clear, is it?

At this point, you are on the verge of arguing that there is no such thing as religion or religious belief in desperation....

No. I'm asking you, James, or any of the others, to explain what you mean by religiously motivated violence, as opposed to violence carried out by people who are supposedly being religious.

DEFINE THE ''RELIGIOUSNESS'' IN VIOLENT ACTS.

Explain what religion IS, then we'll have a clearer picture of what YOU as ''acting religiously''. This way we can then determine what IS ''religiously motivated violence''.

I'm afraid, that definition from the dictionary is NOT a substantial explanation of ''religion'', hence it cannot help in determining why, if true, people are religiously motivated to do violence. You need to expand on that. It needs to come from YOU, or at least a source who has done your work for you.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueos ID,

Thousands of nobles and knights had met together for the council [of Claremont]. It was decided that an army of horse and foot should march to rescue Jerusalem and the Churches of Asia from the Saracens. A plenary indulgence was granted to all who should undertake the journey pro sola devotione, and further to help the movement, the Truce of God was extended, and the property of those who had taken the cross was to be looked upon as sacred. Those who were unfitted for the expedition were forbidden to undertake it, and the faithful were exhorted to take the advice of their bishops and priests before starting. Coming forth from the church the pope addressed the immense multitude. He used his wonderful gifts of eloquence to the utmost, depicting the captivity of the Sacred City where Christ had suffered and died--"Let them turn their weapons dripping with the blood of their brothers against the enemy of the Christian Faith. Let them--oppressors of orphans and widows, murderers and violaters of churches, robbers of the property of others, vultures drawn by the scent of battle--let them hasten, if they love their souls, under their captain Christ to the rescue of Sion." When the pope ceased to speak a mighty shout of Deus lo volt rose from the throng.

Now show which part of that motivation is ''religion'', as opposed to government defending what they believe to be theirs?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

DEFINE THE ''RELIGIOUSNESS'' IN VIOLENT ACTS.

"Religiously motivated violence" surely means "violence motivated by religion", not "violence that is conducted in accordance with religion".

There need be no actual "religiousness" in a violent act for that violence to have been motivated by religion.

I don't need to play football to be motivated to watch a game of it on the telly, but my action is clearly motivated by football.

I would say that an action can be said to be motivated by something if that something gives rise to an emotion upon which you act. But the action need bear no relation to that motivational something.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Is such motive sufficient to establish it as religious, other than in a secular sense of religiousness? Show that.

You ask this in the context of Pope Urban II launching the most extensive religious war in recorded history. The example I gave shows soldiers engaging in solemn rites, being blessed before battle, and even their personal items left behind were venerated by the congregations as holy, as if they had already achieved sainthood. To infer that this is a secular sense of religiousness is to impose on a past culture an a posteriori conclusion that it had no true sense of religion. How is that possible without engaging in revisionism?

If the Christians were not religiously motivated to kill the Saracens, when were they ever religiouslly motivated? Was the development of the New Testament a secular enterprise? Would not all of Christian history have to be discounted, since there would be no proof that any act connected with the Christian faith was anything other than a secular sense of religion?

To say so would require much more than mere historical revisionism.

So when you move around furniture before repainting and you use force, you are being violent? And when the doctor puts back a dislocated shoulder and he is using force to do so, he is being violent?

No, "use of force" is a legal term referring to police action. "Excessive use of force", or, more specifically "deadly force" are bars for proof in police brutality cases.

To be clear, I don't advocate any of that. The legal system functions on the principle of whether the charges made can be proven or not. In the court of law (at least in secular countries), it is generally only necessary to prove that there was measurable damage and that the accused person caused it. Motive is ascertained either indirectly (such as by observing the damage done and what could possibly have been the motive for it), or directly (such as by providing recorded evidence of the accused stating their motive or by testifying), and plays a role in what kind of verdict is made.

Almost universal is the legal concept of perponderance of evidence, i.e., the accused generally is tried on the weight of evidence. Effective prosecution requires proof that the accused was acting deliberately. Inquiry is made into the mens rea, or criminal intent. Because mind-reading is not available, as you noted, courts are left to judge the state of mind from the available evidence. Consider the The Catholic Encyclopedia account of Pope Urban, and suppose he was brought up, Nurembug-style, on charges of conspiracy to commit religiously-motivated violence. Suppose all of the witnesses had been slain except for this chronicler. Don't you think the prosecutor would enter this account into the record against him and that it would be deliberated in his judgment and sentence? And in the cross-examination, do you not imagine the following:

Did you or did you not expressly offer plenary indulgences to the combatants for Christ?

I did.

And is that not one of the most sacred principles of your religion--that whatever bonds you shall loosen on Earth shall be loosened in Heaven?

It is.

And is it not a sacred tenet of your faith that you were anointed by the Holy Spirit as Peter's successor, Father of God's Holy Church, and Representative of Our Lord on Earth, to carry out said joining and loosening of bonds, and that this includes a central religious tenet of the sacred rite of Acts of Contrition and the Holy Sacrament of Penance?

Yes.

So did you engage in a secular or religious act when blessing the soldiers and forgiving them in advance for the violence they would necessarily commit to liberate the Holy Land?

They were sacred acts. It was religious, not secular.

And the combatants, in the vows that were exchanged before battle, and the solemn rites they sought from you, to receive the Holy Eucharist by your hand, to kiss the ring of Peter and to be anointed on their foreheads with Holy Oil and blessed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, would you say they seemed to be in a secular or religious state of mind?

They were prostrate with religious devotion to their Lord, begging him for forgiveness.

Why is that? Isn't your dispensation enough to ensure their eternal reward?

No. They know that only God can see into their hearts. Only God may forgive them, and this was my express statement to them, and my prayer to the Lord, as a prerequisite to them receiving the plenary indulgence.

Your Honor, I have no more questions for this witness.
​

But, as noted, there is a difference between countries with a state religion and those without. The legal system and its principles is somewhat different in secular countries in comparison to countries with a state religion. Neither system approves of vigilante justice, but they have differing ideas as to what vigilante justice is.

Both the Holy Roman Empire and the Arab Caliphates (later Ottomans) are as close as you will get to state religions for the eras they existed. (I'm not sure what your point is, though.)

 

[wynn]

"Religiously motivated violence" surely means "violence motivated by religion", not "violence that is conducted in accordance with religion".

There need be no actual "religiousness" in a violent act for that violence to have been motivated by religion.

I don't need to play football to be motivated to watch a game of it on the telly, but my action is clearly motivated by football.

I would say that an action can be said to be motivated by something if that something gives rise to an emotion upon which you act. But the action need bear no relation to that motivational something.

This is just trivialism then - "anything can motivate anyone to do anything."

As noted a couple of times before (such as here), this is a relativistic anything-goes explanation that excludes all scientific investigation of the issue.

Science concerns itself with cause and effect relationships.

If, as some posters have claimed in this thread, anything can cause anyone to do anything - then there is no room for scientific exploration and discussion of anything, including "religiously motivated violence."


Is trivialism what you want?

 

[Sarkus]

This is just trivialism then - "anything can motivate anyone to do anything."

As noted a couple of times before (such as here), this is a relativistic anything-goes explanation that excludes all scientific investigation of the issue.

So you can provide some details of specific scientific investigations that it is excluding?

Science concerns itself with cause and effect relationships.

Not strictly - it is merely that cause and effect are the predominant nature of relationships, although that is now being questioned by science.

If, as some posters have claimed in this thread, anything can cause anyone to do anything - then there is no room for scientific exploration and discussion of anything, including "religiously motivated violence."

Yes there is room: one can concede that it is not possible to totally exclude religion as a motivation for violence, and move onto whether it does (or even can) motivate on a gross level, rather than specific examples.

However, you and others seem to be rejecting that it can motivate to violence at all - even down to individual level - yet your only line of argument is to employ a definition of religion that is contrary to almost everyone other than you, one that tries to win the argument through definition alone (as previously pointed out) and one that reduces the very concept of religion to a state of quantum uncertainty (since it depends on an unknown - that unknown either being whether God exists or not, or whether those who claim to know God exists are telling the objective truth or merely their own conviction).

Is trivialism what you want?

So sayeth the person who would reduce the concept of religion to a trivial and impotent term?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Aqueos ID, Now show which part of that motivation is ''religion'', as opposed to government defending what they believe to be theirs? jan.

Hello.

Pope Urban II was not their government. He was even preparing charges of excommunication against the King of France, and required military escort into the Vatican, because he was under siege. He had to convene the council in Claremont. When he returned, he discovered he had been deposed by the antipope. It would be hard to define what government meant in that day. Note how The Catholic Encyclopedia depicts this:

For three years Urban was compelled to wander an exile about southern Italy. He spent the time holding councils and improving the character of ecclesiastical discipline. Meanwhile Henry at last suffered a check from Matilda's forces at Canossa, the same fortress which had witnessed his humiliation before Gregory. His son Conrad, appalled, it is said, at his father's depravity, and refusing to become his partner in sin, fled to the faction of Matilda and Welf. The Lombard League--Milan, Lodi, Piacenza, and Cremona--welcomed him and he was crowned king in Milan, the centre of the imperial power in Italy. The way was now clear for Urban's entry into Rome, but still the partisans of Guibert held the strong places of the city. This time the pope took up his residence in the fortress of the Frangipani, a family which had remained faithful to him and which was entrenched under the Palatine near the Church of Sta. Maria Nuova. His condition was piteous, for he had to depend on charity and was already deeply in debt.

I'm not sure how one would define the government at this time.

In those days the highest act of religious devotion was the pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. You can compare this to the Moslem ritual of the Haj. It was a sacred act. One of the venerated role models of this era spent 7 years on his trek, due to obstruction by Saracens. The call to liberate the Holy Land had at its core the motive to gain access to this holiest of shrines. The call came up from the grassroots--something had to be done. Pope Urban II was addressing the call of the people and the consensus across kingdoms clamoring for resolution to the problem.

Do you suppose that all of these people were jointly perpetrating a fraud, merely pretending to engage in religiously motivated acts, such as the pilgrimage, the trek to Claremont, and all that came after that?

Think of the ancient women, embroidering body-length crosses into their sons' tunics, in the model of the vestments worn by priests--the tears they must have shed and the earnest prayers that must have accompanied each stitch. And this went on for 200 years, even longer. Who are we to dismiss their sense of what was sacred?

 

[wynn]

You ask this in the context of Pope Urban II launching the most extensive religious war in recorded history. The example I gave shows soldiers engaging in solemn rites, being blessed before battle, and even their personal items left behind were venerated by the congregations as holy, as if they had already achieved sainthood. To infer that this is a secular sense of religiousness is to impose on a past culture an a posteriori conclusion that it had no true sense of religion. How is that possible without engaging in revisionism?

If you criticize me for revisionism here, then you seem to think that "religion" is whatever any group of people deems "religious." This is yet another form of trivialism.

I don't go with your reasoning because it is trivialistic, not because I would be in favor of "such a definition of religion that excludes the possibility of religion motivating violence."

If the Christians were not religiously motivated to kill the Saracens, when were they ever religiouslly motivated? Was the development of the New Testament a secular enterprise? Would not all of Christian history have to be discounted, since there would be no proof that any act connected with the Christian faith was anything other than a secular sense of religion?

To say so would require much more than mere historical revisionism.

So what if we engaged in such revisionism?

If we are doing it in the pursuit of truth, then it's not revisionism in a negative sense.

Almost universal is the legal concept of perponderance of evidence, i.e., the accused generally is tried on the weight of evidence. Effective prosecution requires proof that the accused was acting deliberately. Inquiry is made into the mens rea, or criminal intent. Because mind-reading is not available, as you noted, courts are left to judge the state of mind from the available evidence. Consider the The Catholic Encyclopedia account of Pope Urban, and suppose he was brought up, Nurembug-style, on charges of conspiracy to commit religiously-motivated violence. Suppose all of the witnesses had been slain except for this chronicler. Don't you think the prosecutor would enter this account into the record against him and that it would be deliberated in his judgment and sentence? And in the cross-examination, do you not imagine the following:

You are missing the point: at the times of the Crusades etc., the popes and other important figures involved acted in ways that were legal then.
They had no legal reason to feel guilty for what they did.

What some people try to do is to judge those past actions by the laws of some other time and country. This is a mistake.

Both the Holy Roman Empire and the Arab Caliphates (later Ottomans) are as close as you will get to state religions for the eras they existed. (I'm not sure what your point is, though.)

I am pointing at what actually seems to be one of the hot spots of this discussion: namely, that some people erroneously judge some past actions by the laws of some other time or country; or that they erroneously judge some present actions by laws that do not apply in the country that has jurisdiction over the act.

For example, in Iran, it is legal to enforce capital punishment for citizens of Iran who were first Muslims but who have converted to Christianity and who refuse to recant their Christian faith.
This is not legal in the US, for example.


If you want to discuss issues of objective morality, then we need to transcend the particularities of individual law-systems; a Nurnberg-like law system is still just another such an individual law system that needs to be transcended.

 

[wynn]

So you can provide some details of specific scientific investigations that it is excluding?

The idea that "anything can motivate anyone to do anything" is trivial, absurd, impossible to investigate scientifically.

Not strictly - it is merely that cause and effect are the predominant nature of relationships, although that is now being questioned by science.
Yes there is room: one can concede that it is not possible to totally exclude religion as a motivation for violence, and move onto whether it does (or even can) motivate on a gross level, rather than specific examples.

That will depend also on what you mean by "religion."

However, you and others seem to be rejecting that it can motivate to violence at all - even down to individual level - yet your only line of argument is to employ a definition of religion that is contrary to almost everyone other than you, one that tries to win the argument through definition alone (as previously pointed out) and one that reduces the very concept of religion to a state of quantum uncertainty (since it depends on an unknown - that unknown either being whether God exists or not, or whether those who claim to know God exists are telling the objective truth or merely their own conviction).

In societies with functioning legal systems, violence is relevant inasmuch as there are laws against it and accordingly functioning institutions that punish the transgression of those laws.

Laws, however, change over time and place.

Given this, we have to be clear what we are discussing:
- legality of past actions,
- legality of current actions,
- objective morality of any action,
- the relationship between legality and objective morality.

So sayeth the person who would reduce the concept of religion to a trivial and impotent term?

It's only "trivial and impotent" to an atheist.
To someone interested in finding out the truth about God, it is pertinent.

 

[wynn]

I'm not sure how one would define the government at this time.

In those days the highest act of religious devotion was the pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. You can compare this to the Moslem ritual of the Haj. It was a sacred act. One of the venerated role models of this era spent 7 years on his trek, due to obstruction by Saracens. The call to liberate the Holy Land had at its core the motive to gain access to this holiest of shrines. The call came up from the grassroots--something had to be done. Pope Urban II was addressing the call of the people and the consensus across kingdoms clamoring for resolution to the problem.

Do you suppose that all of these people were jointly perpetrating a fraud, merely pretending to engage in religiously motivated acts, such as the pilgrimage, the trek to Claremont, and all that came after that?

Think of the ancient women, embroidering body-length crosses into their sons' tunics, in the model of the vestments worn by priests--the tears they must have shed and the earnest prayers that must have accompanied each stitch. And this went on for 200 years, even longer. Who are we to dismiss their sense of what was sacred?

So they apparently tried to regain or defend what they believed was theirs.

People generally act that way, whether they consider themselves religious or not.
The tools and approaches they use tend to depend on the tools and approaches of the opponent.

For example, if an invader with firearms invades your country and keeps killing your people, it won't do much good to try to defend yourself against him with bows and arrows. You'll have to use firearms too, or some super-clever strategy.

So in this process of self-defense, the Christians used a number of tools and approaches - from prayer to sword, at some point, they even sent a boat of children.

I don't see a problem here with the Christians using swords and other weapons of that time against the Turks and other opponents. The opponents were using dangerous weapons too.

 

[wynn]

Now show which part of that motivation is ''religion'', as opposed to government defending what they believe to be theirs?

Do you believe that, theoretically and/or practically, a truly religious person would not use any kind of force in self-defense?

Although perhaps a truly religious or saintly person would never find themselves (due to being truly religious) in a situation where they would be forcefully attacked, or where they would need to resort to use of physical force in order to protect their body and belongings.

Ordinary people tend to live mixed lives - they are somewhat religious, and somewhat mundane. And it is the mundane part that entangles them in numerous problems with other people. Every now and then, those mundane problems escalate into full-blown conflict of interests.

 

[Gustav]

the iraq war is an example of "*religiously* motivated violence"?

Just as strongly, Bush and Boykin believe that they are absolutely good. Bush has suggested that he believes he was appointed by God to become the President of the United States, and Boykin has agreed with this statement. Boykin also believes that God made him a top general in the United States military in order to enable him to wage a holy war against Islam, stating, "We in the Army of God, in the House of God, the Kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this."​

seems like it

​

The defeat of the Byzantines at the hands of the Seljuk Turks in 1071 set the wheels in motion for the First Crusade. The Battle of Manzikirt resulted in victory for the Turks and the loss of Byzantine territory in Asia Minor and Northern Syria. Indeed, this military defeat saw the Byzantines fall into political chaos and civil war. Fast forward ten years to 1081, and general Alexius Comnenus took control in Byzantine and enacted government control over what was left of the Byzantine Empire. But his leadership would not be enough to regain the territory lost in the Battle of Manzikirt, and in 1095 he appealed to Pope Urban II for Western troops to assist and “Urban transformed their request for military aid into a campaign of religious revivalism.”​

and the mechanics of this transformation?

At this time in Western Europe religion played a part in every facet of daily life and “this faith dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer attuned to the attitudes and preconceptions of an increasingly secularized contemporary society.”[6] Each part of life, such as birth, death, and love were controlled by Christian dogma, and fear was utilized in this belief system. More specifically, the danger and fear of sin was held over the heads of the population. It was believed that every human would be judged in death, and only by purifying the soul would one be allowed into heaven. Conversely, anyone who lived a life of sin could expect an eternity in the damnation and fires of hell. “This universal obsession, shared by king and peasant alike, shaped all custom, morality and law.”[7] Considering that most people at this time were illiterate, religious art was utilized as a way to demonstrate to people what would happen if they led a life of sin. Essentially, fear was used as a way to demonstrate what would happen to people who did not lead a life in accordance with the Church’s rules. But one way to absolve oneself of sin was to die in the name of the Lord, which coincidentally meant that anyone who died in the Crusades would be absolved of sin and would a die a martyr’s death. The Church also had to find a way to “reconcile Christian teaching with the ruthlessness of medieval warfare,”[8] and “encouraged military conflict and promoted carnage as an expression of pious devotion.”[9] By the Church acknowledging that fighting and killing in the name of God was a worthy enterprise, this justified the holiness of their endeavor to the crusaders.​

hmm
1 part politics, two parts religion?
6 parts politics, 5 parts religion?
or is it 7 parts........who has the original recipe?????

 

[Sarkus]

The idea that "anything can motivate anyone to do anything" is trivial, absurd, impossible to investigate scientifically.

It is not absurd, and is difficult to investigate scientifically because it is based on subjectivity.
But it is less absurd than requiring "religion" to be defined as something that can not motivate to violence and then asking for people to show how religion can motivate to violence. :shrug:

That will depend also on what you mean by "religion."

Clearly, but I vote we don't use one that has been devised to deliberately beg the question being asked.

In societies with functioning legal systems, violence is relevant inasmuch as there are laws against it and accordingly functioning institutions that punish the transgression of those laws.

Relevance?
Are you arguing that violence is inherently unlawful??

It's only "trivial and impotent" to an atheist.

No it's not - it would be trivial and impotent to any weak agnostic - theist or atheist (not to mention strong agnostic) - in as much as if one does not know if God exists then one can not (per your definition of religion) know if they are being religious or not. It remains an impotent term until one knows God exists (IF God even exists to be known).

You yourself admitted that only God would know if someone was being religious or not (per your definition). If he chooses to tell someone that they are being religious then that person might then know they are being religious but they would not be able to prove it to others.
If he chooses to tell another person that X is being religious then the same issues arise: noone else can know that either person is telling the truth.

Thus "religion" loses all potency as a word to describe anything other than a conditional position that is impossible to resolve... i.e. it is impotent.

To someone interested in finding out the truth about God, it is pertinent.

No it's not. How do you know you're being religious? You have to have God tell you directly, right (per your definition). Until then you're working on guesswork and faith - and you have no idea if you're religious or not. So the term is impotent until it is revealed to you that you are being religious.

And of course, if God does not exist, everyone who claims to be religious - per your definition - is lying.
But then of course you won't know that until God reveals himself... or not.

 

[Gustav]

Ah. And Wynn the Deconstructionist disappears, and Wynn the Theist reappears. Gustav, are you watching?

yeah
to see some take god as a given and atheists doing the same for the sake of rhetoric is hilarious

 

[Aqueous Id]

If you criticize me for revisionism here, then you seem to think that "religion" is whatever any group of people deems "religious." This is yet another form of trivialism.

Do you equate the study of history, and the formulation of inferences from historical evidence, as an exercise in trivialism? That would require a brush with a very broad stroke to paint it so.

Do you dismiss the Holy Roman Empire as a purely secular entity, and the congregation as secular? Or how exactly do you interpret that episode of history?

I don't go with your reasoning because it is trivialistic, not because I would be in favor of "such a definition of religion that excludes the possibility of religion motivating violence."

Is it my reasoning? I thought I was bringing evidence from an authoritative source. Do you regard The Catholic Encyclopedia as engaging in trivialism?

So what if we engaged in such revisionism? If we are doing it in the pursuit of truth, then it's not revisionism in a negative sense.

In my mind revisionism connotes a reinterpretation of history in a contemporary light, at the expense of losing the historical context.

You are missing the point: at the times of the Crusades etc., the popes and other important figures involved acted in ways that were legal then.
They had no legal reason to feel guilty for what they did. What some people try to do is to judge those past actions by the laws of some other time and country. This is a mistake. I am pointing at what actually seems to be one of the hot spots of this discussion: namely, that some people erroneously judge some past actions by the laws of some other time or country; or that they erroneously judge some present actions by laws that do not apply in the country that has jurisdiction over the act.

I'm not sure legalism had much to do with rescuing their shrines. The pope was recognized as having divine authority, and the European monarchs, in general, took their own authority by the sword. Except for some general principles handed down from Roman law, and consolidated under Charlemagne, matters of this magnitude would have been under the sole discretion of each ruler. It's hard for me imagine the degree of guilt any of these men may have felt, as that would seem to require a mind-reading exercise as you noted earlier. I wasn't inquiring into feelings of guilt, but rather, feelings of religious duty.

I agree that we should not judge history out of context, but I am at a loss to reconcile that point with your appraisal of medieval Christianity, which seems to say that it was a secular phenomenon. In context, it is religious. So there's a glitch.

For example, in Iran, it is legal to enforce capital punishment for citizens of Iran who were first Muslims but who have converted to Christianity and who refuse to recant their Christian faith. This is not legal in the US, for example.

In Iran any person can be put to death on the testimony of three witnesses. These are drawn from one of several Komiteh, which have jurisdiction according to nature of offense. So, for example, in the case of the woman who was sentenced to having her lips lacerated for the crime of wearing lipstick, the Shariah Sex Offender Komiteh brought three members who witnessed her wearing lipstick at the time they themselves were apprehending her. Under Shariah law, she was not allowed to testify or even to attend the hearing, insofar as God has already rejected her, she is doomed, and her testimony is rendered moot.

Though I feel strongly about this kind of religiously motivated violence-- which, by the way, also introduces the misogynistic elements of religiously motivated crimes against women--I was only addressing the Crusades. I feel that it is the most clear cut example: it stands on historical evidence, and it has a more purely religious motive than the case of Iran, which also involves a culture clash issue.

To my knowledge there is no comparable element during the Crusades. Furthermore, legalism and secular issues do not come into play, particularly where we examine the motive of rescuing the shrines from occupation and desecration. This is why I raise the revisionism objection.

If you want to discuss issues of objective morality, then we need to transcend the particularities of individual law-systems; a Nurnberg-like law system is still just another such an individual law system that needs to be transcended.

Maybe you missed my point. I merely gave you a scenario, to stimulate your own thinking process in regard to how anyone normally considers the weight of evidence in any matter. By making reference to a hypothetical trial, I am trying to unlock the vault where you are secreting that rationale away. It serves as a basis for "informed debate" to establish the rules of evidence. I was merely pointing to the rules of court as the assumed model.

And for that reason, I brought an authority, a piece of evidence for you to consider. My expectation was that it would be addressed it on its merits.

I didn't have an overt intent to address objective morality per se, I am just addressing the OP, not much more.

 

[wynn]

and the mechanics of this transformation?

At this time in Western Europe religion played a part in every facet of daily life and “this faith dominated and dictated everyday life to an extent that can seem almost inconceivable to a modern observer attuned to the attitudes and preconceptions of an increasingly secularized contemporary society.”[6] Each part of life, such as birth, death, and love were controlled by Christian dogma, and fear was utilized in this belief system. More specifically, the danger and fear of sin was held over the heads of the population. It was believed that every human would be judged in death, and only by purifying the soul would one be allowed into heaven. Conversely, anyone who lived a life of sin could expect an eternity in the damnation and fires of hell. “This universal obsession, shared by king and peasant alike, shaped all custom, morality and law.”[7] Considering that most people at this time were illiterate, religious art was utilized as a way to demonstrate to people what would happen if they led a life of sin. Essentially, fear was used as a way to demonstrate what would happen to people who did not lead a life in accordance with the Church’s rules. But one way to absolve oneself of sin was to die in the name of the Lord, which coincidentally meant that anyone who died in the Crusades would be absolved of sin and would a die a martyr’s death. The Church also had to find a way to “reconcile Christian teaching with the ruthlessness of medieval warfare,”[8] and “encouraged military conflict and promoted carnage as an expression of pious devotion.”[9] By the Church acknowledging that fighting and killing in the name of God was a worthy enterprise, this justified the holiness of their endeavor to the crusaders.​

How is modern life any different?

The principles of using fears and coercion are the same. People nowadays fear losing their jobs, fear losing their spouses/partners, fear not fitting in, fear this, fear that, and if you don't horrible consequences will and do follow. People lose their jobs for the most trivial reasons. Taboos abound.
And the trifles we fear and fight over - hair dye and favorite sitcom! It's monstrous.

In other words, before we criticize the peoples of old for their apparent barbarism, we should see that we are not really any better. We might not be killing people in ways and numbers they did, but people are deprived of their economical basis daily, while we claim to be "civilized." What good is such a civilization.

 

[Gustav]

what was that?
a neuron firing haphazardly?