Inquisition

[avemaria40]

What really went on in the Inquisition? Now, I'm not sure b/c i've read medieval history and it always points the Inquisition in the same way, the Inquisition was to suppress heresy and many ppl were killed for heresy and such. However, did the Inquisition exist just to get rid of those w/different beliefs, or was it to keep ppl safe or what? Now i'm confused

Edited August 24, 2005 by avemaria40

[Brother Adam]

Check out the catholic.com tracks. I know that it was either that or the crusades that they were killing those who had religions in which they slaughtered their own children to their gods.

[Paladin D]

Actually, check out the Phatmass defence directory. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/33"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/33[/url]. Includes the Inquisition. Loads of info there.

[Mikhail]

I am an amateur historian who has studied history for years. One thing that holds true of any history: History is written by the victors. i.e. whoever was in power wrote history and leaned in favor of whoever was writing it. Therego, when trying to get an objective view of history, one must find the right sources. Three different kinds of sources are the required norm before you can get an objective opinion. Get a source from one view, then they opposing view, and finally, an unbiased source. This last one is the most difficult to find and the most important one of all. One must compare the first two sources with each other. In aspects where they come close to same conclusion, one may reasonably be sure they are factual. However, in the case of military history (my main field of study) the commanders of armies always tend to overestimate the number of troops and advantages their enemy had and underestimate their own, whether the outcome was victory or defeat. In that case, it's best to choose an average. Also, the eyewitness accounts are invaluable in these cases. The eyewitness accounts would be the common soldier in the ranks; the civilian who's home the army passed, the person that has nothing to gain from either side winning.

In the case of the Inquisition, I suggest you follow the same course. Read the Catholic viewpoint by all means and then the Protestant ones. The Catholic sources are going to underestimate the cruelty and deaths and the Protestants overestimate. Then go find the account by the Spanish citizen; find the account by a person who barely escaped with his life. Look at all the information objectively and try to come to an objective conclusion. Don't try to gloss over the bad parts, but also try to see the good that always exists in every situation.

I personally don't see what the big focus on the Inquisition is. In those days pursecution for religious beliefs was common and one had about the same chance of being charged with religious crime as a civil crime. Protestants killed Catholics and Anabaptists, and Catholics killed Anabaptists and Protestants. The number of deaths on both sides was comparable. It is useless for either side try to downplay their own part since it doesn't matter anymore. All those involved are dead and it's not happening anymore. The Inquisition got more than it's share of bad history, while some of the other horrid things that went on, espeically in Protestant England, are forgotten or glossed over.

And one final thing. People too often try to make the issues of the past black and white, as plain as day. They were right and they were wrong, cut and dry. However, history repeats itself in a vicious cycle. In case anyone took the time to notice, things aren't black and white today. One merely needs to look at this forum to see all the controversy that exists. If it exists today, you can be sure it did back then. Historians change history to fit their agenda. That's why the American Revolution is called a Revolution and the Civil War is called a rebellion. The victors record history. Try and get past that and find the truth, if you really care to know it.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 24 2005, 02:10 PM'] That's why the American Revolution is called a Revolution and the Civil War is called a rebellion. The victors record history. [/quote]

An absurdity to be sure.

Here is an interesting quote from one of Lincoln's advisors, when asked about the principle of secession. To bad Lincoln didn't listen.

"If secession be a valid principle then God Bless the South. If not, then God Bless the King."

Edited August 25, 2005 by popestpiusx

[Mikhail]

Lincoln violated the 10th ammendmant when he illegally invaded Virginia in 1861. Therefore, he commited treason against the United States of America.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 25 2005, 06:30 AM']Lincoln violated the 10th ammendmant when he illegally invaded Virginia in 1861. Therefore, he commited treason against the United States of America.
[right][snapback]698196[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


While I am in complete agreement with you about Lincoln, I believe you we are probably of differing opinions on the Inquisition... oh well.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 25 2005, 07:30 AM']Lincoln violated the 10th ammendmant when he illegally invaded Virginia in 1861. Therefore, he commited treason against the United States of America.
[right][snapback]698196[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Wasn't this during the Civil War though? Virginia was part of the Confederacy...

[Mikhail]

The 10th ammendment states that all those powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution automatically belong to the states. Since the constitution does not address sucession, this power (that is the power to leave the union) belonged to the state. When Lincoln forced the southern states to stay in the union, he violated the consitiution and committed treason.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 25 2005, 01:54 PM']The 10th ammendment states that all those powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution automatically belong to the states. Since the constitution does not address sucession, this power (that is the power to leave the union) belonged to the state. When Lincoln forced the southern states to stay in the union, he violated the consitiution and committed treason.
[right][snapback]698493[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Glad he did, because we would've been two weaker countries then.

[Mikhail]

So the end justifies the means? So if the government feels that they can take away our freedoms for the benefit of the nation, that is justified? In the words of Ben Franklin, those who give up freedom for the sake of safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety.

[Aloysius]

the Inquisition...

when people get into sources from the time period itself, it becomes clearer that the inquisition was not all that bad.

most of the bad stuff you hear about the inquisition originates in protestant sources centuries later who were spreading propaganda because they were loosing battles against Catholic nations.

the History Channel did a good special on this.

[Mikhail]

[quote]the Inquisition...
when people get into sources from the time period itself, it becomes clearer that the inquisition was not all that bad.
most of the bad stuff you hear about the inquisition originates in protestant sources centuries later who were spreading propaganda because they were loosing battles against Catholic nations.
the History Channel did a good special on this.[/quote]

Yes, the inquisition was put in a bad light by Protestant nations. However, make sure you don't sugar-coat it. The inquisition was a horrible institution that tortured and killed innocent people. They documented it themselves. They were not that much worse than the Protestant governments that also did those things. It was a horrible time when many innocent people died. We shouldn't sugar-coat history. The History Channel so frequently does this that is rarely is worthwhile as a source. Once I caught them giving the wrong inventor the credit of inventing the radio. I wrote them a letter and they apologized and used my letter in a show. Don't put that much faith in them. To sugar-coat the inquisition is about as good a thing to do as use Jack Chick as a source for Catholic faith.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 25 2005, 01:34 PM']So if the government feels that they can take away our freedoms for the benefit of the nation, that is justified?
[right][snapback]698534[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If the only freedom a person loses amounts in the end to enoying an economy that utilizes slave labor, then I have to answer yes.

[Mikhail]

Joe, slavery had nothing to do with it. It was merely a propaganda ploy. Let me quote Lincoln:

[i]"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." [/i]

Let me quote the 10th ammendment as well.

[i]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/i]


As secession was not specifically prohibited to the States by the Constitution, they therefore reserve that right. If a state decided of its own accord by legislative vote to join the Union, then surely they should be allowed to leave it the same way.


It doesn't matter how poor a reason a state had for secession; justice is blind. The fact remains that they had that right, and Lincoln gravely violated that right in invading Virginia. Not to mention, he disregarded habeus corpus at the end of the war.