French Paper Offices Bombed Over A Joke

[a completely inoffensive name]

I was going to say something, but I think I will just wait until the conversation condenses back on to a single topic.

[Tuuvi]

That is part of the path to understanding is standing in the other's shoes

What also has to be looked at are other elements in society open to the barbs of satire?

IMDHO other sections have satire aimed at them. It is one of the requirements of a free society to have a free press. In the same section as the main editors editorial is normally the political cartoons. These satirical cartoons ransack leaders of business, politics and the church.

So my stance is not only satire a requirement of a free press which they weild with a painted wand. It would be a discriminative disservice to apply the stains of satire to all of society bar one pocket. Islam has joined the establishment when it is seen as one of the facets of society to hold a mirror up to.

Do Evangelical Christians get petrol bombed for it? If I was to openly criticise or write in a newspaper "Next paper will be edited by Jesus Christ", should those same people petrol bomb me?

Everything should be open to criticism and whilst some things people say or do are simply immature or childish, the answer isn't to petrol bomb them. The solution is to tut at them and just carry on walking shaking your head.

An example could be on the forum, sometimes a member might post something really immature. What do we do? We point out how immature they are and simply continue living on life.

Nothing is immune to satire and it should never be.

For example. go to Papewaio and make a comment about the shape and colour of his avatars turban about it looking like explicit content. Does he now have the right for violent action against me such as throwing Petrol bombs at me or doing a DDOS against my computer?

The answer is No, but he is free to point out my characters hides in the dark with a mask because my face makes babies cry.

In my first reply to this thread I said that satire, etc. should be legal and that nobody deserves to be bombed for it. And I agree that satire can be a good thing, however when it crosses the line and becomes ridicule with the intent to offend others it ceases to be constructive, in my opinion.

[Nowake]

And the point stands, Catholics moved in to suppress the spread of a Lutheranism which was ridiculing the state of the Church by pointing out the fallacies of their thesis and their degenerate morals. The Catholics did everything in their power to stop militarily a war of ideas. It is what established religion always does to protect itself against ridicule. It cannot fight, as Mark Twain asserted when he wrote the quip I quoted on the previous page, truth-revealing ridicule with reason.

Reason is the best weapon for fighting anything, so your second sentence makes no sense.

As to the first part, the military campaigns were extremely late in the day. By the time of the thirty years war both Wyclif and Huss had been condemned and Luthor and Calvin were loose upon the world. The cat was so far out of the bag it had died of extreme old age, and so had all it kittens, after having huge families of their own. As to the violent internal reactions - they were extreme because of the internal politics of the time.

I find it rather hard to accept you would, in good faith, contradict me with such an argument.

Perhaps it is truly just a blind-spot in your historical lectures, yet it seems so crazy to write with such certainty that “the military campaigns came extremely late [because heretics as] Wycliff and Huss had been condemned by the time of the thirty years war,” as if conflicts which lasted decades and even bear the name of one of them, such as the Hussite Wars, had never happened, nevermind the engagements of the XVIth century. There’s no argument to contest the fact that their uprising was Crusaded against. I would incline to believe you simply prefer to contradict me for some reason though.

I won’t comment on the petty way in which you dismiss a historically validated assertion in your first statement.
I suggest we get passed our debate in that abortion thread thingy, if that is what causes this silly antagonistic attitude. We surely can raise above it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I find it rather hard to accept you would, in good faith, contradict me with such an argument.

Perhaps it is truly just a blind-spot in your historical lectures, yet it seems so crazy to write with such certainty that “the military campaigns came extremely late [because heretics as] Wycliff and Huss had been condemned by the time of the thirty years war,” as if conflicts which lasted decades and even bear the name of one of them, such as the Hussite Wars, had never happened, nevermind the engagements of the XVIth century. There’s no argument to contest the fact that their uprising was Crusaded against. I would incline to believe you simply prefer to contradict me for some reason though.

Wyclif was active from the 160's to 1384, when he died of a stroke. His condemnation at Blackfriars (his third trial) condemned his ideas, particularly as regarded temporal power and the Eucharist, but he was allowed to retire to his Parish in Lutterworth. In 1409 Archpishop Arundel published his "Constitutions" which severly curtailed religious debate and Biblical translation, the "Law of Burning" allowing for the burning of heretics had already been passed in 1401. Despite this, no rebellion occured until 1415, and as late as March 1413 Sir John Oldcastle, the Lollard Knight, was able to avoid condemnation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oldcastle

As to the Hussites, well Huss traveled volantarily to the Council of Constance in 1415, where he and Wyclif were both condemned and Huss was executed. The Council also provided the first Ecumunical Condemnation of what would become "Protestant" doctrine, it has in fact been argued that Constance galvanised "Protestantism" by opposition, given that (as your own link shows) the Hussite Wars did not begin until 1419 my point stands.

Concerted military effort began very late in the day, Wyclif was more than 30 years dead before a proper condemnation of his ideas could be promulgated from the Holy See (partly due to internal schism, but that's not the point) and rebellion and Catholic "Crusades" come later. The cat was already well and truly out.

I always argue in good faith, and I think the majority of patrons here would support me in that claim.

Maybe it's the fact that I have a much more nuanced view of medieval religious practice and politics than you?

I won’t comment on the petty way in which you dismiss a historically validated assertion in your first statement.
I suggest we get passed our debate in that abortion thread thingy, if that is what causes this silly antagonistic attitude. We surely can raise above it.

I don't like you because of the way you treat people you dissagree with and in particular your habit of denigrating your opponent's intellect, and integrity. I am opposing you here because you demonstrate ignorance. As to your "historically validated" assertion, I'm not sure to what you refer. If you are claiming that ridicule defeats reson then you clearly are not using your own.

Reason is a blade, ridicule is a blunt instrument, one is lethal the other just gives you a sore head.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Sometimes a small dose of ridicule can open peoples eyes better than a long dose of reasoning.

People usually have some structure to their belief that they are comfortable with, something needs to happen to shake their comfort.

Of course a bad attempt at reasoning is inoffensive and allows itself to be corrected easily, which is a huge difference compared to ridicule.

[Nowake]

no rebellion occured until 1415

No rebellion occurred until mere... weeks after the execution of Jan Huss.
Execution, by the by, which is the perfect case in point for the way religion decided to fight ridicule of say, its practice of selling Indulgences, with reason, which was the point I was making and which you've constantly chosen to misinterpret. Case in point illustrating your “Reason is the best weapon for fighting anything” principle of course; nothing more reasonable than burning someone for his arguments against your beliefs.
Oh and I bet no one can see how thirty years from Wycliff’s death is a number which totally disproves your assertion that “The military campaigns were extremely late in the day [during] the time of the thirty years war. The cat was so far out of the bag it had died of extreme old age, and so had all it kittens, after having huge families of their own.”

I don't like you because of the way you treat people you dissagree with and in particular your habit of denigrating your opponent's intellect, and integrity.

I’m sorry to have aroused such strong feelings, even more so considering their negativity. Honestly.
I can’t sincerely say I accept the accusations though. So, if you can’t get over it, lets just look past each other i.e. try to not engage my assertions anymore. I do not like to debate a point in which my interlocutor has a personal stake.
Having said that, eventhough you initiated this latest exchange, I’ll back off from continuing the particular chain of replies, as a courtesy. Thus go ahead and get your final word if you so wish and be done with it

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thus go ahead and get your final word if you so wish and be done with it

My final word is this:

You are trying to get me to sacrifice the intellectual high ground by goading me to reply.

Sure, I'll do that for you. Feel better?

In answer to your question, yes burning people at the stake is completely reasonable, although most heretics were actually hung until the Renaissance. I have already explicitely stated that execution of heretics is entirely reasonable in the theological context of the time. You ignored me.

Also, it's Wyclif with one "F", not two. If you want to be anachronistic you could go with Wycliffe.

As to not answering points: Mine was that there were no wars to supress heresy until very late in the game, Hussite and Wycliffite revolts were not the same as the later religious wars, the most concerted of which was the Thirty Years War.

In any case, the heresy begins with Wyclif in England, not Huss, and I have never heard it argued that Oldcastle's rebellion was due to the Council of Constance, the Hussite Wars did not begin until four years after Huss' death, and by your own admission the Hussites sent a deputation to Constance to remonstate with the Council, not least because Huss had letters garenteeing his safe conduct to and from the Council (but not his safety at Constance).