Savonarola & the Bonfire of the Vanities

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's quite a pessimistic view of the human race. I hope your faith in mankind is restored some day.

And the view that we are all born by and with sin isn't? I suppose I hope the same for you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


Does it? Did the French Revolution improve the situation of the masses? What about the Russian Revolution?

In the long term, I'd say it did, yes.

As for the Russian Revolution, the State became a religion soon enough.

Originally posted by David C
And the view that we are all born by and with sin isn't? I suppose I hope the same for you.

And the view that we are all born by and with sin isn't?

If that were the end of the matter, then it would be a pessimistic view.

But, of course, the Christian view does not end there. It goes on to teach that sin can be overcome and that the human being can be restored to his basic and fundamental dignity in being created in the image and likeness of God.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

That's quite a pessimistic view of the human race.

I was talking about giving the benefit of the doubt to the dead (historical perspective).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In the long term, I'd say it did, yes.

As for the Russian Revolution, the State became a religion soon enough.

And yet, with the French, true social reform did not happen till the reign of Napoleon - who overturned the principles of the Republic and the anti-Church mentality of the Revolution.

When you say "the State became a religion" with respect to Communism and the Russian Revolution, what do you mean?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I was talking about giving the benefit of the doubt to the dead (historical perspective).

How is it different from giving the benefit of the doubt to the living?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

When you say "the State became a religion" with respect to Communism and the Russian Revolution, what do you mean?

Stalin's personality cult. You knew that already.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Stalin's personality cult. You knew that already.

In what ways was the cult of Stalin different from other religions (as one would normally refer to them) like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And yet, with the French, true social reform did not happen till the reign of Napoleon - who overturned the principles of the Republic and the anti-Church mentality of the Revolution.

You can't say that Napoleon's reforms, not to mention his political ambitions, were religiously inspired. He was the first (as far as I know) modern dictator, effectively placing himself above the Pope. As for the Revolution, Napoleon's career would have been unthinkable without it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In what ways was the cult of Stalin different from other religions (as one would normally refer to them) like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism?

You tell me.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You can't say that Napoleon's reforms, not to mention his political ambitions, were religiously inspired. He was the first (as far as I know) modern dictator, effectively placing himself above the Pope. As for the Revolution, Napoleon's career would have been unthinkable without it.

You can't say that Napoleon's reforms, not to mention his political ambitions, were religiously inspired.

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that he recognised that the anti-religion mentality of the French Revolution was not tenable.

He was the first (as far as I know) modern dictator, effectively placing himself above the Pope.

In a sense, that was true of the Bourbons as well.

Nevertheless, Napoleon recognised that true social reform rested on finding a "golden mean" between an irreligious State and a religious one.

As for the Revolution, Napoleon's career would have been unthinkable without it.

In the same way as the French Revolution would have been unthinkable without the excesses of the French aristocracy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that he recognised that the anti-religion mentality of the French Revolution was not tenable.

So, Napoleon recognised the Church as a useful tool. His social reforms had nothing to do with religion, but were more concerned with administration. The difference between him & the Bourbons--no divine right of kings to fall back on...in fact no rights at all, only his (ahem) will to power--clearly demonstrated by his gesture of crowning himself Emperor. Pity he was such a megalomaniac, he could have fulfilled the ideal of the enlightened despot.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I've been reading up on Savonarola (as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola) & wondering whether I'd have supported him or not. On the balance, and to my surprise, I think I'd have hated his guts & cheered when he got his. How about you?

I'm afraid I can't see why you might be surprised at cheering the fellow's unfortunate end.

Savonarola represents the evils which fundamentalism can bring. Thanks be to God that the Italians (Florentines here) are far too civilised to have put up with his nonsense for more than five minutes.

If he had had his way, it would have been the Dark Ages again in 30 seconds, and a creepy form of "Christian Shariah Law" all round. Make no mistake- any civilised European must surely rejoice, perhaps not in the manner of his demise, but rather in Alexander's opposition to him, and his eventual fall from power.

Ah, Savonarola. My beloved Florence. Thank you for this topic.

Hard to assume what I would do. If I could somehow insert myself into the late 15th century with something like my current attitudes, I would be deeply suspicious of Savonarola because his 'moral reform' was based on terrifying people rather than inspiring them; and the messianic view of his own role in the scheme of things. "Behold!" went one of his sermons, "The Sword has descended, the scourge has fallen; the prophecies are being fulfilled. Behold, it is the Lord God who is leading on these armies ... Behold, I shall unloose waters over the earth ... it is not I but God who foretold it. Now it is coming. It has come!" (The House of Medici, Christopher Hibbert, Harper Perennial, 1974.

Imagine HIM on The 700 Club.

He had neants (in the Nietzchean sense) and piagnoni to bat for him politically, and he had strong critics, but he really seemed to ride an historical tide as far as popular support in Florence. Much could be written and debated about it. Savonarola's undoing seems a little more clear. He really got carried away with his belief in himself as God's instrument, openly defying an amazed Pope until he was excommunicated and Florence began reappraised this "reformer."

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
I dont like religious conservatives. But I would have probably been one if I lived in his time.

Conservative hell. Savonarola was a religious revolutionary.