Encouragement for Lucifershammer

Originally posted by no1marauder
US law is based on the Enlightment philosophies of personal freedom. That other countries have vestiges of imperial law is their problem. The idea that one can defame the RCC is ludicrous. The idea that a film be banned because some people might be offended by it is offensive to any idea of personal freedom. If you want to be the RCC version of Goebbels that's up to you, but stop your silly criticism of US law because it supports free expression.

Oh yes, please remind me how "free expression" works again. "It's not free if Big Daddy can tell you what you can and cannot say" - except when economic interests are at stake. Enlightenment philosophy alright.

Now, if only we could convince Locke to give up his silly ideas about fundamental rights being the means to an end and get him to treat them as ends in themselves...

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
[b]If he knows his claims are not factual, then he is trying to con the reader.

To steal your phrase, it isn't so binary. It's possible he truly believes his claims; It's also possible that the 'facts' are open to some interpretation.

And, yes, it is very easy to refute his claims. It's just much easier to sell 40mn copies of "Big Bad Chu ...[text shortened]... ro and con, and come to their own conclusion. Censorship deprives them of that right.[/b]

To steal your phrase, it isn't so binary. It's possible he truly believes his claims; It's also possible that the 'facts' are open to some interpretation.

Note the part where I said "If he knows..."?

Some 'facts' may be open to interpretation. 'Facts' like five million women burned as witches are not.

Legally, everyone has, or ought to have, the right to examine the evidence, both pro and con, and come to their own conclusion. Censorship deprives them of that right.

Really? What would you say to an ID-er who uses that same argument to support his position that ID should be taught in the classroom as a rival theory to evolution?

Originally posted by Churlant
Actually, about 5 minutes of Googling tells me the number is between 200,000 and 9,000,000 - depending on the source, of course. You will understand that I disbelieve both extremes, however the exact number seems rooted in semantics.

So for the sake of argument we will imagine only 200,000 women have died of this religious persecution. My original question then applies - who is responsible?

Wow! What search term(s) did you use?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
With your twisted notion that the Church is an entity that only does good acts...

Really? Have you joined howardgee and no1marauder in the telepathy department?

Where did I say the Church only does good acts?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Really? Have you joined howardgee and no1marauder in the telepathy department?

Where did I say the Church only does good acts?

Why don't you just tell us how many people you think the church is responsible for burning as witches. Is it zero?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Wow! What search term(s) did you use?

Way to avoid my question for the second time. Care for a third?

I know, why don't you tell me how many women were killed, then look at my question yet again filling in the blank with that number.

-JC

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why don't you just tell us how many people you think the church is responsible for burning as witches. Is it zero?

Why don't you put forward a number for a change, good Doctor?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why don't you put forward a number for a change, good Doctor?

Zero remains my best estimate. My second estimate is five million.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
To steal your phrase, it isn't so binary. It's possible he truly believes his claims; It's also possible that the 'facts' are open to some interpretation.

Note the part where I said "If he knows..."?

Some 'facts' may be open to interpretation. 'Facts' like five million women burned as witches are not.

Legally, everyone is position that ID should be taught in the classroom as a rival theory to evolution?

Note the part where I said "If he knows..."?

Ok, how would you know if he knows?

Some 'facts' may be open to interpretation. 'Facts' like five [b]million women burned as witches are not.[/b]

However, the number could certainly be disputed. "Five million" is obviously an estimate.

Really? What would you say to an ID-er who uses that same argument to support his position that ID should be taught in the classroom as a rival theory to evolution?

I'd say that, although the teacher does not teach every possible theory (impractical), the information is available, should a student desire to go read it on their own time.

Originally posted by Churlant
Way to avoid my question for the second time. Care for a third?

I know, why don't you tell me how many women were killed, then look at my question yet again filling in the blank with that number.

-JC

Actually, I just wanted to see what sources you thought were credible enough to actually put forward that 9 million figure. In fact, I can't even find a decent source that goes over 100,000 (Wikipedia lists 40,000 - 60,000).

As to your second question, I'll provide some links that give an answer (and definitely not from a Catholic or Christian POV):

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/02/01/witch_craze/index.html?pn=1
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm#menu

If you're going to be an anti-Catholic, at least be an informed one - and learn history somewhere other than the Da Vinci Code.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
My second estimate is five million.

What a coincidence! That's the same figure Dan Brown came up with. And it's just 1 million less than the Holocaust (so no one can say the Burning Times were worse than the Holocaust).

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
[b]Note the part where I said "If he knows..."?

Ok, how would you know if he knows?

Some 'facts' may be open to interpretation. 'Facts' like five [b]million women burned as witches are not.[/b]

However, the number could certainly be disputed. "Five million" is obviously an estimate.

Really? What would you say to an ID- ...[text shortened]... e information is available, should a student desire to go read it on their own time.[/b]

Ok, how would you know if he knows?

We don't to a mathematical certainty. But he'd have to be terribly incompetent (with all the "research" he apparently did) not to figure out things like Churlant did in about 5 minutes of Googling.

But Dan Brown's clearly not that incompetent. Therefore, one can only reasonably judge that he did know.

"Five million" is obviously an estimate.

Yeah. As saying that the Holocaust cost only 60,000 Jewish lives would also be an "estimate".

I'd say that, although the teacher does not teach every possible theory (impractical), the information is available, should a student desire to go read it on their own time.

I'm not asking the teacher to teach every possible theory. But ID is a theory that seems to be getting a lot of coverage and (apparently) has a lot of adherents in certain regions. Surely a teacher (or a school board) should not be "censoring" a viewpoint that she does not share, should she? As you said, people have the right to see the evidence for themselves. How can you reasonably expect school children to judge for themselves if they are not presented all the evidence? Especially when they are graded on one - you don't think a student who's done independent research on ID, accepts it as true and includes it in his science paper should get an 'A', do you?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, I just wanted to see what sources you thought were credible enough to actually put forward that 9 million figure. In fact, I can't even find a decent source that goes over 100,000 (Wikipedia lists 40,000 - 60,000).

As to your second question, I'll provide some links that give an answer (and definitely not from a Catholic or Christian POV) ...[text shortened]... be an informed one - and learn history somewhere other than the Da Vinci Code.

Do you think that an organization responsible for 100,000 witch burnings stands on solid ground when making a claim that they ought to be protected from slander?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, I just wanted to see what sources you thought were credible enough to actually put forward that 9 million figure. In fact, I can't even find a decent source that goes over 100,000 (Wikipedia lists 40,000 - 60,000).

As to your second question, I'll provide some links that give an answer (and definitely not from a Catholic or Christian POV) ...[text shortened]... be an informed one - and learn history somewhere other than the Da Vinci Code.

You really should get out of the habit of misrepresenting someone else's posts.

I did not say I believed the 9 million figure (in fact, I specifically stated I don't believe it), however that was the highest number I found on a "5 minute Googling".

I also have not stated I am anti-Catholic. Your inference in this regard is incorrect.

As far as your "answer" to my question - thanks. The book review isn't bad, but the Religioustolerance site doesn't really reflect too well on the RCC. Obviously it offers evidence to lower the Church's direct impact, and further reduces the numbers (50,000), but there are still many references to the church's role in the atrocities being mentioned.

Nor do the included references to the Malleus Maleficarum add anything but additional evidence to the RCC's historic misogynism (the charge of which is part of the initial debate within this thread, I believe).

It is nice to see you at least post a link or two (finally), even if you still won't bother to actually answer the questions you are repeatedly asked. Since I do you the consideration of providing a moderately original response to your own inquiries, I would appreciate it if you would at least humor me with a broader, more novel display instead of what appears to be your trade-mark flippancy.

-JC

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think that an organization responsible for 100,000 witch burnings stands on solid ground when making a claim that they ought to be protected from slander?

Let's say Organisation O is responsible for 100,000 witch burnings. Saying that it's responsible for 5 million witch burnings would still be slander, wouldn't you say? That is, unless you're arguing that it has forfeited all rights to being treated fairly because of its part in the former [actual] crime.

Wait a minute, doesn't that sound like the principle the Inquisition was based on...

On another note, do you think the Catholic Church was responsible for 100,000 witchcraft executions? Why or why not?

Btw, burning was actually a relatively rare means of execution for witchcraft.