Hacker News Reader

> Even if, in the past, we've had stuff like the crusades and the dark ages i

It is interesting that both those examples (which are the "obvious" ones people pick") was really anything like what people imagine then to be like. The "dark ages" were dark in terms of a lack of records in western Europe as the Roman Empire collapsed and the imperial systems disappeared. Many historians argue that life mostly improved for ordinary people, the status of women improved, slavery was replaced by serfdom etc. The crusades started in response to a call for help from people who were being invaded, and were at least partly defensive: at the time they started the Arab Empires had occupied most Spain, most Mediterranean islands, parts of southern Italy, had invaded France etc. While they were not entirely virtuous they were not without reason either.

> While we could talk about tens of thousands of deaths in terror attacks from religious cracknuts who love to kill as many non-believers as possible.

A pretty small proportion of Muslims support religious violence. The extremists exist and are powerful or widely supported in some countries, but its no usual.

> while another religion, according to the latest published World FactBook from the CIA, has as many as 30% of its followers worldwide approving sharia laws.

What do they mean by that? It varies. Survey wording can mean it can even include following rules of personal conduct. It often means religious rulings over religious matters - not very different from Catholic marriage tribunals. Even where people want it to have the force of law, they may want that only for Muslims. While the extremists exist, they are far fewer than 30%. Most of that 30% is concentrated in a few countries, although the fact that some of those countries are very wealthy has meant they can fund the spread of those ideas.

I agree with most of your reply, but I'd disagree on dark ages and crusades.

The dark ages were indeed a time of cultural collapse: science largely stopped, state capacity was cut massively (one indicator being that the Romans used to field armies of hundreds of thousands and the successor states in Europe would wage war with a few thousand men), large public infrastructure projects disappeared, religion started wielding a stifling influence on all aspects of life and society. Depending on who you ask, people will tell you that things improved for the ordinary people or very much worsened.

History, like other fields in academia, undergoes cyclical periods of rejection of dogma, as new researchers try to make a name for themselves by turning on their predecessors: I see the rejection of Dark Ages in the last decades as largely that, and recently there is more of a reversal, with new Middle Ages researchers turning on those previous researchers.

For crusades: this was not an answer to conquest. Byzantium had lost its crown jewel, modern Turkey, to Turks and then Arabs (a region, by the way, that had been reconquered and lost for centuries). The emperor at the time, Alexios, wanted a few hundred Western knights, to help him reconquer a few cities in the region (Jerusalem was not part of his plans, or at least priorities, religion was very much not a variable in his calculations), but the pope at the time saw a way to increase his own power and stirred up a religious hysteria: when the Western armies arrived to Constantinople, the Byzantines were surprised by the size and the goals of them, conflicts happened immediately, and the entire story of the first crusade is the emperor trying to conquer some revenue-generating lands and distrusting the Westerners, while the Western princes wanted to generate revenue for themselves (on my phone, simplified). Over further crusades, the Byzantines started to hate the 'Franks' (Westerners), as did the 'liberated' cities, for the many crimes and massacres they committed. Religion, and helping the fellow Christians, was simply a weapon wielded by the pope, the emperor, and the princes.

I think the rest of that previous comment is bigotry, but the poster is right about Crusades being a shameful event in the history of Christianity.

The War on Iraq may not fit the definition of terrorism, being government actions, but it killed a shit load of people and was driven by religious convictions with flimsy or non-existent evidence:

https://san.com/cc/george-w-bush-saw-iraq-war-as-crusade-dec...

https://www.thirteen.org/worldfocus/blog/2009/05/27/religiou...

"in the last 100 years how many terror attacks have been committed in the name of the christian god?"

Depends how you count, the war on terror, that in reality mostly just brought terror to blow up weddings etc. was and is justified as a crusade by certain christian politicians. And quite some other wars had those elements as well, even the Nazis claimed they officially fought in the name of god against the atheist communists (and many did believe that, viewed Hitler as doing god's will).

Apart from that, check out The Lord's Resistance Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

Or just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

> the Nazis claimed they officially fought in the name of god against the atheist communists.

Not the Christian God. The aim of the Nazis was to replace the Christian ethos. Himmler said they aimed to get rid of the 10 commandments. They invented two religions (neo-paganism and Positive Christianity) as replacements for Christianity. They regarded Christianity as Jewish plot that overthrew the Roman Empire. Their ideal was to return to a pre-Christian European society, and Hitler said Sparta was the historical society closest to Nazi ideals.

> and is justified as a crusade by certain christian politicians

While they might be influential politicians, they are almost all also at odds with mainstream Christianity. There are similar problems with the wikipedia page about Christian terrorists. Most were anti-Catholic (so their enemies included most Christians). Others are "cultural Christians" rather than believers.

The nazis were not a homogeneous block and neo paganism was not invented by them. They also made use of it, but actual neo pagans among the nazis were rare, it was rather marginal and the mainstream was still very christian. Their main believe uniting them was about blood and race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians_movement

And they did try to ignore/change the fact that Jesus was jewish and other stuff to help it establish a german identity religion. But I am pretty sure, that the many non nazis in germany fighting for germany did motivate themself by fighting against atheists and for god.

While they did not invent neo-paganism per se, they invented a particular form of it that fit their ideology. They also invented "positive Christianity".

The Nazi leadership and their core followers were very much committed to getting rid of Christianity. Certainly the heretical movement you refer to existed, but mainstream Christianity was not compatible with Nazi ideology . The Catholic church condemned the Nazi ideology as contrary to Christianity (in Mit brennender Sorge) and large numbers of protestants took the risk of condemning the "German Christian movement as heretical (e.g. those who joined the Confessing Church). I do not think the claim that they were "very Christian" is plausible.

"I do not think the claim that they were "very Christian" is plausible."

I do claim the mainstream of people fighting for Hitler were very christian (of those who had any religion). Not that the hardcore inner Nazi circle was christian (probably none of them were).

"The Catholic church condemned the Nazi ideology as contrary to Christianity (in Mit brennender Sorge)"

But they only did so, after Hitler attacked their organisation, not before or after the Nazis rose to power. Hitler did not liked them, but had respect for the catholic church, as a old power institution. But he did not had them under control as the pope was elsewhere, so they started to attack their base. So not so much a question of morality or religion, but mere power in my view. But surely there were also quite a few Kräuterbein's (if you happen to know that book). Who did not went into open resistance, but did what they could to keep things sane and humane.

"and large numbers of protestants took the risk of condemning the "German Christian movement as heretical (e.g. those who joined the Confessing Church)"

I have a huge respect for those who did. But I don't believe their number was that large all in all. The majority marched in line.

How many of the majority were scared? Subject to propaganda? Is there evidence they were "very Christian" rather than nominally so? Were people fighting because they supported the Nazis or because they were fighting for their country?

The Catholic Church also had to worry about what would happen to German Catholics. I do not think it was about power, it is the logical result of Christian thought. It is well known that Catholic areas of Germany voted against the Nazis and it is fairly obvious that the Nazi ideology was intrinsically opposed to Christianity.

Well, I am not a historian, but born as a german catholic and my 99 year old grandmother is still alive and of clear mind and I engaged with the topic a lot, so I probably do have some insights - but no, I don't know any absolute numbers here.

But I do know, that the church was also very anti communist and that antisemitism was basically a christian tradition. As well as strict authorian rule with going after anyone who thinks different. So that was a common base.

Be honest, please; the arrests were not for "praying in your head" they were for repeatedly breaching a buffer zone and actively refusing a request to move on.

eg: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo (and one or two others)

You have not covered anything like all cases these, and the article makes it clear "breaching a buffer zone" was standing silently while praying.

> Poole Magistrates' Court heard the former serviceman had his head bowed and hands clasped outside the British Pregnancy Advisory Service in Ophir Road.

> The court was told he had been praying for his unborn son, who he said died from abortion 22 years ago.

In a declared buffer zone, after announcing he intended to this, and after an hour or more of refusing to move on.

It was deliberate disregard of a buffer zone that applied to all that had no business within the abortion centre, whether he was praying in his head or not we'll never know and it's immaterial to the reason for the arrest.

Noneheless all he did was stand silently. There is no way it is right to criminalise standing and saying nothing.

It's not right to do so and it's not criminalised.

Again, he was arrested for entering an exclusion zone and refusing to leave for an hour.

There are many no trespass areas for a variety of reasons, and, as the saying goes, trespassers can and will be prosecuted - whether they are praying or not.

Why focus only on big, showy acts of violence? Christian-influenced violence happens countless of times everyday, such as a gay kid getting beat up because some other kids hear their pastor maligning him every week. Christian violence happens every day.

I'm cushioning my statements as much as possible, if you read my other post here.

I'm aware of where most of the zealotry comes from at the moment.

I'm not trying to be unfair to Christians or to Christianity, which in large part has renounced violence as a means of converting people.

Most Christians from before the early-20th century, would consider your interpretation of Christianity as mostly heretical. They very willingly forced Christianity into anyone who wasn't, as well as into anyone who wasn't of their particular branch.

The text is the same, as is, presumably, the Jesus, so either they had understood it all wrong and current Christians understand it correctly, or the other way around. Which is it?

IMHO, those are two distinct religions. Actual Christianity is the old one. The modern one isn't Christianity, but European Enlightenment in Christian clothing. And yes, the later is much better than the original.

EE also provides Judaism clothing, Buddhist clothing, and other such clothings, which is why it works so well. In fact, it also has a relatively recently developed Islamic clothing, though adoption is still limited. Hopefully it'll expand over time.

> Most Christians from before the early-20th century, would consider your interpretation of Christianity as mostly heretical.

No they would not. Mainstream Christian belief has not changed in a very long time.

Tell me of any belief the Catholic Church (which more than half of all Christians belong to) currently holds that would have been considered heretical a thousand years ago?

Well, I am pretty sure they would not have made such a statement 1000 years or even 100 years ago

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes that all homosexual individuals must "be accepted and treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and that all forms of unjust discrimination should be discouraged and avoided at all cost"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_homosexual...

Such a statement could not be made a thousand years ago as it would be utterly anachronistic. The concept of "homosexual individuals" only exists as part of the modern concept of sexual orientation. A thousand years ago people thought in terms of acts, not orientation.

I think it unlikely that they would have regarded treating anyone with compassion as heretical. Most of the early condemnation of homosexuality was specifically of pederasty which was accepted in pre-Christian times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church... They might have disagreed strongly, but it would definitely not be heresy. Many historians believe homosexuality was tolerated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_ho...

Ecumenism, for one. The Second Vatican Council was very divisive among Catholics, and to this day the Church has to keep pressing it upon and against the will of old-school Catholics. Some felt so offended by it they left the Catholic Church altogether so as to stick with what it used to believe in before the 1970s.

Great post.

Once the EE got going and separated church from state, it also provided the emancipation of Jews[0], on the thesis that individuals transcend groups and have inalienable rights.

From the perspective of a 17th Century Jew or Christian, that project worked to reform and soften both Christianity and Judaism in Europe because both people were prepared to reject extremist beliefs in favor of economic, worldly, material wellbeing. Protestantism and Judaism in particular share certain traits in prioritizing work, science, individualism and success in the corporeal life.

It might be an unpopular idea, but the softening of Christianity was in some way its reunion with Judaism, from being a religion adapted by the Romans to war to a realignment with the more temperate biblical Judaism that Christ was actually teaching. But Christian scripture did have a gentle interpretation inherent to it.

Every European movement which sought to destroy the Enlightenment tried first to roll Jewish emancipation back and then to destroy the Churches, to supplant enlightened Christianity with extremist state religion.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_emancipation