Forced to be Christian

[CrazyAnglican]

Right, but the difference between North Korea and our government is that we have a representative republic and they have, for all intents and purposes, a dictatorship. They are still both secular as neither has an official religion (North Korea goes so far as to be officially atheist, I believe). Secular only refers official absence of the role of a church or religion in a government. Any governmental form, short of a theocracy, could be secular.



Okay, I've gotta ask. Did we establish that any significant amount of people have been forced to be Christian in like the last few hundred years?

[mpjh]

Some would argue that we have a dictatorship, an economic one. After all, who got the $775 billion with no strings attached. It sure wasn't the working stiff in a car factory.

The number of Jews forced to convert wasn't provided. However, the op references DNA research that showed a surprisingly high number of Spanish people with genetic markers for Shephardic Jewish ancestors.

I did give some anecdotal evidence from my own family that the effects of the forced conversion continue to this day, and there is considerable literature from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries that some families still practice their Jewish faith in secret, but maintain a Catholic outer life. I say all indications are that the number was significant.

Some of the Jews forced from Spain into Portugal had the following experience:

One hundred thousand refugees may have entered under these conditions. At the end of eight months, however, little shipping was available and few could leave. Those left behind were declared forfeit of their liberty and were declared slaves of the king. In 1493, many Jewish children were torn from their parents and send to the recently discovered island of São Tomé off the west coast of Africa:

In this year of 1493, ... the king gave to Alvaro de Caminha the Captaincy of the Island of São Tome of right and inheritance; and as for the Castilian Jews who had not left his kingdom within the assigned date, he ordered that, according to the condition upon their entry, all the boys, and young men and girls of the Jews be taken into captivity. After having them all turned into Christians, he sent them to the said island with Alvaro de Caminha, so that by being secluded, they would have reasons for being better Christians, and [the king] would have in this reason for the island to be better populated, which, as a result, culminated in great growth.1

In 1993 the descendants of those children, still living on São Tome, held ceremonies to commemorate that tragic event.

[PLAYER57832]

I did give some anecdotal evidence from my own family that the effects of the forced conversion continue to this day, and there is considerable literature from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries that some families still practice their Jewish faith in secret, but maintain a Catholic outer life. I say all indications are that the number was significant.

The conversion of Latin America was similar in some ways (force, abuse certainly occured), but is was fundamentally differant. First, there was no explusion option. The native people were not considered "heathens, but essentially equal", as hte Jews were, they were considered truly inferior people who needed to be "brought up" to the "enlightenment" of Christianity.

Also, the Roman Catholic church actually encouraged native people to substitute their own names for Jesus, Mary, etc. The idea was that this was a first step leading toward true Christian education. In some cases, though the original Mayan (etc.) rights were maintained, but with Catholic terminology substituted for the original (or substituted in public, anyway). I don't know much more than that, but I heard of this from one of the scholars to first translate the Mayan language.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't object to religious people participating in government, so long as they respect the secular nature of our constitution.

I know we just disagree here, but the constitution's role is to ensure that one religion does not legally dominate over the other. A truly secular constitution would not do that. The role of the government is precisely to ensure that even the most obscure sect had the right to practice its religion in peace ... provided certain basic human limits are not exceeded (and what those limits are is constantly being refined... at one point slavery was OK, as was many forms of what we now call child abuse).

[Snorri1234]

Because I believe that it is largely religious consideration that drove these past action, we need to keep religion out of our civil life.

That opens the door to a whole lot of things that should be "kept out" of our civil life. The United States kept many Japanese Americans in internment camps during WWII. Is the influence of a representative republic also to be kept from civil life? Churches of today are actually participating in this thing called liberation theology, in advocation of freedom for the oppressed. Should that be kept out of civil life merely because some people from the churches of the past acted badly?

Actually, keeping religion out of our civil life is exactly what our constitution does. It doesn't bar religion, it simply keeps it out of government, and government out of it.

Which proves my point. Our government, under the U.S. Constitution that "bars religion" as you put it, took the liberty of masses of Japanese-Americans based on nothing more than their national heritage. Removing religion from civil life apparently does nothing to guarentee that no atrocities will occur.

Ofcourse not. But possibly it lessens atrocities. Religion is a very powerfull idea that can be used to do things. People are far less willing to die or commit certain acts for philosophers they like.

[mpjh]

Yes, there are no guarantees, but as snorrii points out, we can lessen the probability.

[Snorri1234]

I don't object to religious people participating in government, so long as they respect the secular nature of our constitution.

I know we just disagree here, but the constitution's role is to ensure that one religion does not legally dominate over the other. A truly secular constitution would not do that. The role of the government is precisely to ensure that even the most obscure sect had the right to practice its religion in peace ... provided certain basic human limits are not exceeded (and what those limits are is constantly being refined... at one point slavery was OK, as was many forms of what we now call child abuse).

maybe, but it would be far better if laws don't get objected to on a religious basis. Sure, I know the system is unlikely to change. But wouldn't it be awesome if reasoned debate was the main factor in the process of making laws and regulations?

Ofcourse, this is already the case for most issues. (At least for the majority of people, there are always nutjobs.) But there are still a number of issues where religion is determining the outcome instead of actual good arguments.

[Snorri1234]

Well, you could posit that, but the economic factors seem an unlikely explanation since they allowed Jews to convert if they wished,

And we all know people will switch religion for the slightest advantage....



Seriously nap, this argument contradicts your entire belief. A lot of (religious) people rather get expelled and shunned than change their faith. Your entire church is there because people refused to convert no matter what. Shit, one argument that gets repeated over and over again regarding bible accuracy is that the apostles didn't even renounce their faith while being tortured and murdered.


If the government tells you that you either have to convert to the islam or leave the UK and/or France, would you do it? Would you actually practice all their rituals and renounce your god and his ways?

[Napoleon Ier]

But as I say, loads of Jews (40.000 roughly, around half of the original number according to Garcel Garcia I think) did stay, and continued to do business.

Sure, the Spanish State then did in some of them they didn't like with the Inquisition, but I'm not sure that edict was particularly unreasonable.

[Snorri1234]

But as I say, loads of Jews (40.000 roughly, around half of the original number according to Garcel Garcia I think) did stay, and continued to do business.

Sure, the Spanish State then did in some of them they didn't like with the Inquisition, but I'm not sure that edict was particularly unreasonable.

Wait, the Inquisition wasn't unreasonable?



Anyway, sure a number of jews did stay but that doesn't mean the intentions of the Spanish weren't economic. Just because it didn't work that good doesn't mean anything.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, they knew plenty would stay. If he motivation was economic, I reckon they'd have banned them all.

And I was saying that the decision to expel them wasn't unreasonable.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't object to religious people participating in government, so long as they respect the secular nature of our constitution.

I know we just disagree here, but the constitution's role is to ensure that one religion does not legally dominate over the other. A truly secular constitution would not do that. The role of the government is precisely to ensure that even the most obscure sect had the right to practice its religion in peace ... provided certain basic human limits are not exceeded (and what those limits are is constantly being refined... at one point slavery was OK, as was many forms of what we now call child abuse).

maybe, but it would be far better if laws don't get objected to on a religious basis. Sure, I know the system is unlikely to change. But wouldn't it be awesome if reasoned debate was the main factor in the process of making laws and regulations?

Ofcourse, this is already the case for most issues. (At least for the majority of people, there are always nutjobs.) But there are still a number of issues where religion is determining the outcome instead of actual good arguments.

No.

For one thing, a lot of morality does stem from religion.

Second, people of faith ALWAYS put faith above all else. So, if you ask them to subvert their faith for the state ... you have a battle. That is a good part of why the US was founded (no, not all of it, but it was a true part). It only becomes wrong when they impose their faith on others. That part is always a "tug-of-war" (Where do my rights stop and yours begin? ) and that is why the state is needed to be the overall judicator.

[Snorri1234]

For one thing, a lot of morality does stem from religion.

Interresting issue with which I happen to disagree. But let's not talk about that here.

Second, people of faith ALWAYS put faith above all else. So, if you ask them to subvert their faith for the state ... you have a battle. That is a good part of why the US was founded (no, not all of it, but it was a true part). It only becomes wrong when they impose their faith on others. That part is always a "tug-of-war" (Where do my rights stop and yours begin? ) and that is why the state is needed to be the overall judicator.

That does in no way mean that it wouldn't be better if religious people didn't put faith above all else. It only say that it doesn't happen, which I agree with.


The problem with the second part is that "the state" is made up of individuals who frequently are religious. The imposing happens on a state-level, so the "tug-of-war" happens within the state and is therefore rarely resolved. How many senators and congressmen have voted against gay-marriage out of non-religious grounds? Aren't they limiting rights? Religion is still controlling laws, even to this day.

I am waiting for the first presidential election where the issue of the candidates religion doesn't matter.

[Snorri1234]

Well, they knew plenty would stay. If he motivation was economic, I reckon they'd have banned them all.

Perhaps, but if they knew plenty would stay all other reasons would have been just as stupid.

And I was saying that the decision to expel them wasn't unreasonable.

Ah okay.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, they knew plenty would stay. If he motivation was economic, I reckon they'd have banned them all.

Perhaps, but if they knew plenty would stay all other reasons would have been just as stupid.

Cultural hygiene? Making sure fanatics and radicals leave?

[mpjh]

On what basis to you assume that Jews would be fanatics and/or radicals?

[Napoleon Ier]

On what basis to you assume that Jews would be fanatics and/or radicals?

Well, the basis that they were influential in conspiring with Morisco rebels.

[Snorri1234]

Well, they knew plenty would stay. If he motivation was economic, I reckon they'd have banned them all.

Perhaps, but if they knew plenty would stay all other reasons would have been just as stupid.

Cultural hygiene? Making sure fanatics and radicals leave?

Cultural hygiene just sounds like a term to cover up racism.

And why would they be sure that fanatics and radicals would leave?

[mpjh]

On what basis to you assume that Jews would be fanatics and/or radicals?

Well, the basis that they were influential in conspiring with Morisco rebels.

That would be hard because the Marisco rebels were expelled in 1609 CE and the Jews were expelled in 1492 CE.

[Napoleon Ier]

The Moriscos were yes, but rebels had existed far before 1609 in newly re-conquered territories, often being helped by local Jews.

Snorri: culture and race are two different things, but you know, society back then was horribly racist, so what are you going to do?

[mpjh]

I see, so you didn't mean the Morisco rebels who were expelled, you meant the Moroscos who were not expelled and some other group of rebels who were expelled with the Jews, or are you just rewriting history to match you incorrect post?

[Napoleon Ier]

I see, so you didn't mean the Morisco rebels who were expelled, you meant the Moroscos who were not expelled and some other group of rebels who were expelled with the Jews, or are you just rewriting history to match you incorrect post?

1609 comes after 1492, dear. The Moriscos and Moslem renegades were around pre-1609, and in that period, Jews were helping them fight Spain, hence why the Spanish crown felt it a necessity to expel them for security reasons, or at any right, could have been justified in doing that.

[mpjh]

Actually the Spanish crown expelled the Jews in 1492 for their religion.

The expulsion of this intelligent, cultured, and industrious class was prompted only in part by the greed of the king and the intensified nationalism of the people who had just brought the crusade against the Muslim Moors to a glorious close. The real motive was the religious zeal of the Church, the Queen, and the masses. The official reason given for driving out the Jews was that they encouraged the Marranos to persist in their Jewishness and thus would not allow them to become good Christians.

It had nothing to do with the Moricos rebels, or any other rebels for that matter.

[Napoleon Ier]

Hmm... where's this quote from, and what are it's sources? I'd need to review my Kamen, but nonetheless, I still don't see why I couldn't justify it on security grounds. As I've mentioned, the Spanish Crown had plenty of reasons for doing this, plenty very wrong. They're no heroes in Catholic lore, you know, always a tad rebellious in their relation with the Pop,e so I'm not trying to defend them no matter what.

[mpjh]

google it, but next time do the research before making the post.