Islam is unable to relate to the diverse contemporary cultures

[shunyadragon]

Just noticed this as you edited the post after I'd already replied.



No, I am not 'confusing when there was later also' that you've just found out about

The reason why the pre-Gregorian conception of double leadership within the Church, of priest and king, Pope and Emperor, and with it the notion of the state as a function of the Church, could not last, was that the demarcation-line between the two supreme powers and authiorities was in practice very difficult to define. Even though the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal was undisputed on principle, the right order between the two was not easy to maintain in the contingencies of history. This difficulty caused the eleventh and twelfth century struggles between the Papacy and the leading European states, the most formidable of which was the Investiture Contest with the Holy Roman Empire, which concerned the question of who should invest or endue bishops and abbots with their spiritual offices and appertaining possessions. As a result of these struggles, great changes occurred in the relationship between Church and State; and now we are actually more justified in using this modern term for the relationship.

Aspects of Medieval Thought on Church and State​

Gerhart B. Ladner
​

Still think it is 'outrageously false' btw?

The problem with this is Divine rule and not separation of church and state,because no secular state existed. The kings, emperors all believed firmly in Divine rule. As I said before,this has nothing to do with the development of the separation of church and state. This developed with the development of secular separate governments as in the Magna Carta and the evolution of the documents that followed that established parliaments and the evolution of constitutional monarchies. As in the French Revolutions the abuse and corruption of the monarchies contributed greatly.

The other issue.probably the biggest, does not even involve the separation of church and state, and that is the long term conflicts between the Empire and the individual regional kingdoms since empires first formed. The conflicts where local kingdoms have always struggled for autonomy and independence from Rome, and when Rome divided and weakened these demands for autonomy increased, but the individual kings and emperors still firmly believed in Divine rule.

 

[Augustus]

???

 

[shunyadragon]

???

??????????

 

[Ancient Soul]

AS: you didn't address my points!

Augustus: I know. That's because I don't care about them.

AS: A strawman! Such deceit!

Bravo

But you MUST have cared about them since you tried a straw man argument to make it look like you were "refuting" what I stated. if you didn't care, you would have not tried at all.

 

[Augustus]

??????????

Your reply was blank at the time

The problem with this is Divine rule and not separation of church and state,because no secular state existed. The kings, emperors all believed firmly in Divine rule. As I said before,this has nothing to do with the development of the separation of church and state.

@Vouthon has already provided an evidence based refutal of this point, which again you ignored and simply continue to assert your own opinion without support as fact, while viewing scholarship of experts (even peer-reviewed) as being contemptuous.

Anyway, even if a king believed he ruled through Divine Providence, so did the Pope. The consequence of the events we are discussing would mean that each had different areas authority: control over the church and spiritual domain and control over the state and temporal domain. The crux of the issue is that these were 2 separate domains, unlike, for example, in Ancient Greece.

As I said before,this has nothing to do with the development of the separation of church and state.

You have said many things before which are clearly and objectively false (no evidence Greek Byzantines had Greek philosophy until they got it from Arabs; Christians weren't doing much of translating in the Islamic translation movement, etc.)

No one is claiming that these events led to the instant appearance of modern secularism, but that they were significant events in a long process as they established the separate identities of church and state.

How would you justify your claim that the events that established different domains and independent identities had "nothing to do with the development of the separation of church and state"? The 2nd (peer reviewed) paper, specifically cites this period as creating these very distinctions.

From before, but you didn't address them directly:

To be sure, Gregory today may not enjoy the fame of a Luther, a Lenin, a Mao – but that reflects not his failure but rather the sheer scale of his achievement. It is the incomplete revolutions which are remembered; the fate of those that succeed is to end up being taken for granted. Gregory himself did not live to witness his ultimate victory – but the cause for which he fought was destined to establish itself as perhaps the defining characteristic of Western civilisation. That the world can be divided into church and state, and that these twin realms should exist distinct from each other: here are presumptions that the eleventh century made ‘fundamental to European society and culture, for the first time and permanently’. What had previously been merely an ideal would end up a given...

Not that it had ever remotely been Gregory’s own intention to banish God from an entire dimension of human affairs; but revolutions will invariably have unintended consequences. Even as the Church, from the second half of the eleventh century onwards, set about asserting its independence from outside interference by establishing its own laws, bureaucracy and income, so kings, in response, were prompted to do the same. ‘The heavens are the Lord’s heavens – but the earth He has given to the sons of men.’13 So Henry IV’s son pronounced, answering a priest who had urged him not to hang a count under the walls of his own castle, for fear of provoking God’s wrath. It was in a similar spirit that the foundations of the modern Western state were laid, foundations largely bled of any religious dimension. A piquant irony: that the very concept of a secular society should ultimately have been due to the papacy. Voltaire and the First Amendment, multiculturalism and gay weddings: all have served as waymarks on the road from Canossa.

Tom Holland - Millennium: The End of the World and the Forging of Christendom

The reason why the pre-Gregorian conception of double leadership within the Church, of priest and king, Pope and Emperor, and with it the notion of the state as a function of the Church, could not last, was that the demarcation-line between the two supreme powers and authiorities was in practice very difficult to define. Even though the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal was undisputed on principle, the right order between the two was not easy to maintain in the contingencies of history. This difficulty caused the eleventh and twelfth century struggles between the Papacy and the leading European states, the most formidable of which was the Investiture Contest with the Holy Roman Empire, which concerned the question of who should invest or endue bishops and abbots with their spiritual offices and appertaining possessions. As a result of these struggles, great changes occurred in the relationship between Church and State; and now we are actually more justified in using this modern term for the relationship.

Aspects of Medieval Thought on Church and State
Gerhart B. Ladner
​

This developed with the development of secular separate governments as in the Magna Carta and the evolution of the documents that followed that established parliaments and the evolution of constitutional monarchies. As in the French Revolutions the abuse and corruption of the monarchies contributed greatly.

MC was certainly relevant to the evolution of liberal democracy, what, specifically, do you believe was so important about it in terms of secularism that made it pivotal?

The other issue.probably the biggest, does not even involve the separation of church and state, and that is the long term conflicts between the Empire and the individual regional kingdoms since empires first formed. The conflicts where local kingdoms have always struggled for autonomy and independence from Rome, and when Rome divided and weakened these demands for autonomy increased, but the individual kings and emperors still firmly believed in Divine rule.

I don't quite get your point here.

 

[Augustus]

But you MUST have cared about them since you tried a straw man argument to make it look like you were "refuting" what I stated. if you didn't care, you would have not tried at all.

Or perhaps you still don't know what a strawman is, and that I didn't try at all


Let's try again:

Augustus: I think something about Topic A.
AS: Do some internet research on Topic B [that is pretty much irrelevant, but] I [appear to] think is devastating to your point!
Augustus: Or you could do some research on Topic A and then you might understand why it isn't really relevant and why I don't care about it.
AS: A strawman! Such deceit!

Bravo

 

[shunyadragon]

@Vouthon has already provided an evidence based refutal of this point, which again you ignored and simply continue to assert your own opinion without support as fact, while viewing scholarship of experts (even peer-reviewed) as being contemptuous.

Actually no, @Vouthon just glorified you,negated me, and used the shotgun approach of Biblical unrelated quotes that only described the spiritual relationship of the relationship between humans and God in the broader context than Judaism. The citations had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of the separation of church and state nor the rise of Democracy.

In reality the Bible describes the belief in Divine theocratic rule and nothing to do with democracy nor the separation of church and state.

Anyway, even if a king believed he ruled through Divine Providence, so did the Pope. The consequence of the events we are discussing would mean that each had different areas authority: control over the church and spiritual domain and control over the state and temporal domain. The crux of the issue is that these were 2 separate domains, unlike, for example, in Ancient Greece.

No, they are simply two levels of the same Theocratic principles of Divine rule. Unlike Greece?
The philosophy and the government of Athens Greece was more democratic than anything until possibly the later democracy of Switzerland.

You have said many things before which are clearly and objectively false (no evidence Greek Byzantines had Greek philosophy until they got it from Arabs; Christians weren't doing much of translating in the Islamic translation movement, etc.)

You have said many things before which are clearly and objectively false. Pretty much everything you cited had nothing to do with the rise of the separation of church and state nor the rise of democracy.

I never asserted no evidence

No one is claiming that these events led to the instant appearance of modern secularism, but that they were significant events in a long process as they established the separate identities of church and state.

No, as more accurately described as simply increased autonomy of states for reasons cited below.

How would you justify your claim that the events that established different domains and independent identities had "nothing to do with the development of the separation of church and state"? The 2nd (peer reviewed) paper, specifically cites this period as creating these very distinctions.

. . . because what you cited has nothing to do with the separation of church and state nor democracy. They were only the trend of increased autonomy of Divinely ruled states for reasons other than you cited.

From before, but you didn't address them directly:

To be sure, Gregory today may not enjoy the fame of a Luther, a Lenin, a Mao – but that reflects not his failure but rather the sheer scale of his achievement. It is the incomplete revolutions which are remembered; the fate of those that succeed is to end up being taken for granted. Gregory himself did not live to witness his ultimate victory – but the cause for which he fought was destined to establish itself as perhaps the defining characteristic of Western civilisation. That the world can be divided into church and state, and that these twin realms should exist distinct from each other: here are presumptions that the eleventh century made ‘fundamental to European society and culture, for the first time and permanently’. What had previously been merely an ideal would end up a given...

Not that it had ever remotely been Gregory’s own intention to banish God from an entire dimension of human affairs; but revolutions will invariably have unintended consequences. Even as the Church, from the second half of the eleventh century onwards, set about asserting its independence from outside interference by establishing its own laws, bureaucracy and income, so kings, in response, were prompted to do the same. ‘The heavens are the Lord’s heavens – but the earth He has given to the sons of men.’13 So Henry IV’s son pronounced, answering a priest who had urged him not to hang a count under the walls of his own castle, for fear of provoking God’s wrath. It was in a similar spirit that the foundations of the modern Western state were laid, foundations largely bled of any religious dimension. A piquant irony: that the very concept of a secular society should ultimately have been due to the papacy. Voltaire and the First Amendment, multiculturalism and gay weddings: all have served as waymarks on the road from Canossa.

Tom Holland - Millennium: The End of the World and the Forging of Christendom

The reason why the pre-Gregorian conception of double leadership within the Church, of priest and king, Pope and Emperor, and with it the notion of the state as a function of the Church, could not last, was that the demarcation-line between the two supreme powers and authiorities was in practice very difficult to define. Even though the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal was undisputed on principle, the right order between the two was not easy to maintain in the contingencies of history. This difficulty caused the eleventh and twelfth century struggles between the Papacy and the leading European states, the most formidable of which was the Investiture Contest with the Holy Roman Empire, which concerned the question of who should invest or endue bishops and abbots with their spiritual offices and appertaining possessions. As a result of these struggles, great changes occurred in the relationship between Church and State; and now we are actually more justified in using this modern term for the relationship.

Aspects of Medieval Thought on Church and State
Gerhart B. Ladn

​

As cited these are minimally related, if at all, to the rise of the separation of church and democracy. Particularly the growing autonomy of kings and emperors from the Roman Churches preserved the Divine rule, and was more related to the reasons cited below.

MC was certainly relevant to the evolution of liberal democracy, what, specifically, do you believe was so important about it in terms of monasteries secularism that made it pivotal?

(1) The rise of the Merchant class in Great Britain and Europe.
(2) i already described the rise in Greek philosophy,and in particular the origin of democracy in Athens and the related philosophers.
(3) The increase of the availability of education outside the monasteries and the royal families. This also contributed to the rise of intellectual movements.

I don't quite get your point here.

The reasons for growing autonomy of kings and emperors from the Roman Churches was grounded in other reasons than the rise of the separation of church and state nor the rise of democracy. This rise in increasing autonomy was also due to the weakening of the Roman Empires.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Actually no, @Vouthon just glorified you,negated me, and used the shotgun approach of Biblical unrelated quotes that only described the spiritual relationship of the relationship between humans and God in the broader context than Judaism. The citations had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of the separation of church and state nor the rise of Democracy.

In reality the Bible describes the belief in Divine theocratic rule and nothing to do with democracy nor the separation of church and state.



No, they are simply two levels of the same Theocratic principles of Divine rule. Unlike Greece?
The philosophy and the government of Athens Greece was more democratic than anything until possibly the later democracy of Switzerland.



You have said many things before which are clearly and objectively false (no evidence Greek Byzantines had Greek philosophy until they got it from Arabs; Christians weren't doing much of translating in the Islamic translation movement, etc.)



No, as more accurately described as simply increased autonomy of states for reasons cited below.



. . . because what you cited has nothing to do with the separation of church and state nor democracy. They were only the trend of increased autonomy of Divinely ruled states for reasons other than you cited.

I have read a lot of Baha'i posts because they post a lot. What I have never seen explained is how EXACTLY the future Baha'i government would be set up and how it will function. The actual nuts and bolts. From leadership to representation, functions of elected/appointed officials, who is allowed to be in positions of authority and such. If the belief is that everyone will eventually come to realize that your prophet is the true and new and only correct messenger to believe in, then there must be a plan for governance? Otherwise , what is the point? Even a fully believing civilization still has to be organized by some type of government. What exactly does the Baha'I world wide goverment system look like and how will it function? This after all, is the end purpose of everyone being a Baha'i and following their messenger.

You can start another thread about it if you wish so it doesn't throw this one off. It is something I've wondered about after reading Baha'is online.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have read a lot of Baha'i posts because they post a lot. What I have never seen explained is how EXACTLY the future Baha'i government would be set up and how it will function. The actual nuts and bolts. From leadership to representation, functions of elected/appointed officials, who is allowed to be in positions of authority and such. If the belief is that everyone will eventually come to realize that your prophet is the true and new and only correct messenger to believe in, then there must be a plan for governance? Otherwise , what is the point? Even a fully believing civilization still has to be organized by some type of government. What exactly does the Baha'I world wide goverment system look like and how will it function? This after all, is the end purpose of everyone being a Baha'i and following their messenger.

You can start another thread about it if you wish so it doesn't throw this one off. It is something I've wondered about after reading Baha'is online.

Yes, another thread in Interfaith Discussion.

Coming soon

 

[Augustus]

Actually no, @Vouthon just glorified you,negated me, and used the shotgun approach of Biblical unrelated quotes that only described the spiritual relationship of the relationship between humans and God in the broader context than Judaism. The citations had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of the separation of church and state nor the rise of Democracy.

A few posts ago you had to resort to getting your knowledge from primary school handouts written in size 20 font, now you are arguing that the following scholarly source (among many others of equal relevance) had nothing to do with the development of liberal democracy

Medieval Theories of Natural Rights
John Kilcullen

Abstract: From the 12th century onwards, medieval canon lawyers and, from the early 14th century, theologians and philosophers began to use ius to mean a right, and developed a theory of natural rights, the predecessor of modern theories of human rights. The main applications of this theory were in respect of property and government.

(A shorter version of this essay is being published in Springer Enclyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy.)


On what rational grounds do you believe that the development of natural rights had nothing to do with Western liberalism?

You have said many things before which are clearly and objectively false.

Then by all means quote them along with the evidence that shows what you say is true, as I have done.

Pretty much everything you cited had nothing to do with the rise of the separation of church and state nor the rise of democracy.

Other than being scholarly sources that specifically discuss the very issues clearly bolded for your convenience...

As cited these are minimally related, if at all, to the rise of the separation of church

You don't think that the creation of the concepts of church and state as separate entities had anything to do with the separation of church and state?

I never asserted no evidence

Don't tell fibs

A little reminder of our discussion:

there is no evidence that the Byzantine Empire had any or significant Greek philosophy texts before they received them through Islam in the Middle Ages

There is no evidence that the Greek speaking (Eastern) Roman [Byzantine] Empire that had ruled over Greece for c1000 years had access to Greek philosophical texts until they got them from the Arabs who got them from the Greeks after they conquered parts of the Roman Empire?

There is no evidence that the Christians had any more than very limited access until the Islamic influence.

So would you now agree that you were mistaken, and, in fact, the Byzantines had plenty of Greek philosophical texts and didn't need to wait until "they received them through Islam in the Middle Ages"?

The increase of the availability of education outside the monasteries and the royal families. This also contributed to the rise of intellectual movements.

Probably should have checked the role of the church and the monastic orders in this endeavour before making such a claim

So, the church, Jesuits, etc. massively increased access to education, giving hundreds of thousands of people access to Greek philosophical texts which they included in the curricula, which contributed to the rise of intellectual movements which contributed to liberal democracy, yet this proves Christianity had nothing to do with the development of liberal democracy?

i already described the rise in Greek philosophy,and in particular the origin of democracy in Athens and the related philosophers.

Do you believe that the Athenians were proponents of secular liberal democracy? Can you point to some of the Greek philosophical foundations for secular liberal democracy?

The reasons for growing autonomy of kings and emperors from the Roman Churches was grounded in other reasons than the rise of the separation of church and state nor the rise of democracy. This rise in increasing autonomy was also due to the weakening of the Roman Empires.

There was no Roman Empire in the West from the 5th C onwards and we are discussing the 11th and 12th C.

 

[shunyadragon]

A few posts ago you had to resort to getting your knowledge from primary school handouts written in size 20 font, now you are arguing that the following scholarly source (among many others of equal relevance) had nothing to do with the development of liberal democracy

Medieval Theories of Natural Rights
John Kilcullen

Abstract: From the 12th century onwards, medieval canon lawyers and, from the early 14th century, theologians and philosophers began to use ius to mean a right, and developed a theory of natural rights, the predecessor of modern theories of human rights. The main applications of this theory were in respect of property and government.

(A shorter version of this essay is being published in Springer Enclyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy.)

Natural rights as described here remained under the Divine Right of kings, emperors,and the Roman Churches.

On what rational grounds do you believe that the development of natural rights had nothing to do with Western liberalism?

Natural rights as described here remained under the Divine Right of kings, emperors,and the Roman Churches.

Then by all means quote them along with the evidence that shows what you say is true, as I have done.

You have not shown it to be true.All your references still show that the Divine Right to rule remains only in the domain of the kings,.emperors,and the Roman Churches.

Other than being scholarly sources that specifically discuss the very issues clearly bolded for your convenience...

Nothing here demonstrates the separation of the church and state nor the evolution of democracy.

You don't think that the creation of the concepts of church and state as separate entities had anything to do with the separation of church and state?

No, because all entities remained as Divine rule with no separation of church and state. I have already responded to this. Even when the kings and emperors attained autonomy they remained the head of church in their state and ruled by Divine authority with absolutely no notion of the separation of church and state with any form of secular state.

So would you now agree that you were mistaken, and, in fact, the Byzantines had plenty of Greek philosophical texts and didn't need to wait until "they received them through Islam in the Middle Ages"?

No my references tell a different story than your assertions that are unfounded and do not reflect the reality of the Greek texts and their influence on the governance of the Church and Divine rule of the states.

Probably should have checked the role of the church and the monastic orders in this endeavour before making such a claim

So, the church, Jesuits, etc. massively increased access to education, giving hundreds of thousands of people access to Greek philosophical texts which they included in the curricula, which contributed to the rise of intellectual movements which contributed to liberal democracy, yet this proves Christianity had nothing to do with the development of liberal democracy?

The increase in the education by the Jesuits of secular references increased the secular influence, but it remains the Bible, teachings of the Roman Church had nothing to do with the the rise of the separation of church and state and democracy. I already acknowledged the increase of education of secular sources beyond the Roman Churches is an important influence of the rise of secular influence.

Do you believe that the Athenians were proponents of secular liberal democracy? Can you point to some of the Greek philosophical foundations for secular liberal democracy?

They were proponents of Athenian democracy, the beginnings of democracy as described by the Athenian philosophers. The inspiration for democracy evolved and influenced by these sources.

There was no Roman Empire in the West from the 5th C onwards and we are discussing the 11th and 12th C.

We are discussing the whole history of the Roman Churches.

 

[Vouthon]

They were proponents of Athenian democracy, the beginnings of democracy as described by the Athenian philosophers. The inspiration for democracy evolved and influenced by these sources.

You are again conflating 'democracy' in its direct form, with representative liberal democracy. In the ancient context, democracy in ancient Greece and the populares or populist party in ancient Rome (the most famous senator to embrace this philosophy being the Dictator Julius Caesar) had not even a scintilla of of liberal thought behind it.

Here's a classics scholar, Professor Bethany Hughes, explaining it:

Democracy's roots are far from liberal

We take the term from ancient Athens, but Athenian democracy, the product of an age remembered as egalitarian and high-minded, bore almost no resemblance to ours.

From the harbour at Piraeus, Athenian oarsmen rowed out to claim new territories in the name of democracy. They were not always welcome. At Melos, all men were slaughtered, all women and children enslaved when the island preferred to "put our trust in our gods, to try to save ourselves" and preserve their liberty rather than accept Athenian-style democracy.

Little surprise, then, that when recording the "free cities" in league with Athens, there is sometimes a slip of the chisel: instead of "our allies" on inscriptions, the Athenians can refer to "the cities that we rule".

Kratos meant hold or grip, and the Ancient Athenian would have been under no illusion that he had a real, direct grasp on power. Six thousand citizens at a time could fit on the bare rock of the Pnyx, where they voted on how they should run their lives. There was no notion of individual liberty - all was enacted for to koinon, the commonality.

I remember listening to an American on Radio 4 shouting that, in a democracy, of course kids had the right to buy cans of spray paint and do what they liked with them. Athenians would have hooted: the babbling of a maniac.

The democratic club in Athens was also very small.

Athenian women were less than second-class citizens - Aristotle considers them sub-standard. They were thought to pollute. Female bodies were porous: evil could come oozing from open orifices, their mouths and eyes. And for this reason they were kept not only covered but veiled. The first hard evidence we have of the use of the full face veil comes from Athens.

In Ancient Greece, those who preferred a private to a publicly aware life were categorised idiotes. Idiots indeed.
​

I'm surprised that you don't seem to be reflecting on the fact that the greatest philosopher and thinker of the ancient world, Socrates, was executed by the Athenian demos for daring to question the city's traditions.

The Athenian assembly killed him in 399 BC (well compelled him to poison himself with hemlock, to be specific) because he had committed the crime of asebeia: “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”. Diopeithes’ decree went as follows:

"...Socrates commits a crime in not recognising the gods the state recognises, and introducing other, new divine powers instead. He also commits a crime by corrupting the young..."
​

The city observed a certain pantheon of gods, if you failed to "acknowledge" them or introduce new gods, then you are an "atheist" (denier of the gods) and deserve to be expelled or executed. His trial, according to the account left by Plato in his Apologia, included this exchange with his inquisitors:

Socrates: Or is it that you say I don’t recognise gods at all, and I teach this position to others?

Meletus: The second option: that you do not recognise gods at all.

Socrates: You are extraordinary, Meletus! Why do you say this? Do I not even recognise the sun or the moon as gods, as other people do?

Meletus: No by Zeus, judges, he does not! He says that the sun is a stone and the moon made out of earth.


​

Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World

Instilling belief in the gods, the Athenian insists, is absolutely essential to the functioning of a just society. Therefore, there must be penalties laid down against anyone who insults the gods, ‘either in deed or in word’. The qualification ‘or in word’ is striking, and reactivates memories of Diopeithes’ decree, almost 100 years earlier, which had come up with the revolutionary stipulation that piety consisted in proper belief as well as proper action.​

Socrates is the first person in history, that I know of at least, who was sentenced to death for having the wrong religious beliefs and supposedly corrupting society by expressing his contrarian philosophy. And it was "democratic Athens" that pioneered such intolerance millennia before the Spanish Inquisition or the Islamic Mihna.

There was no parliamentarism, human rights or constitutionalism in the Athenian model. No politicians, judges, civil servants. A small group of elite free citizens deliberated directly, without limitation by any rule of law or limited by a constitution or set of inviolable rights.

Again, this was a secularisation by 14th century monarchs of an originally theological concept first utilized within Benedictine monasteries, then by the institutional Church in the 12th century:

"...The church had already developed its own practice of holding representative councils out of a deep rooted conviction that the whole Christian community was the surest guide to right conduct in matters touching the faith and well-being of the church..." (Tierney 1995, p. 85)​

"...quod omnes tangit (“what touches all must be approved by all”) bec[a]me an important concept in the legal history of the Middle Ages. The canonists first used this principle to define the legal relationship between a bishop and his chapter of canons. Later, the maxim was introduced into ecclesiastical government where it supported the rights of the lesser members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to have a hand in the governing of the church." (Pennington 1970, p. 157)​

"Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) recognized the importance of the maxim, and it was he who probably brought it into canon law. The wording of the maxim varied from time to time, . . . but its importance in medieval political thought as well as canon law is undeniable. It was quoted by such conciliarists as Guilielmus Durandus the Younger, Marsilius of Padua, [and] William of Ockham."(Watanabe 1963, p. 53)​

"y the beginning of the fourteenth century, kings all over Europe were summoning representative assemblies of their noblemen, clergy, and townsmen. When they did, the reason they often gave for calling such assemblies was, “what touches all must be approved by all.” (Pennington 1970, p. 157) ​

 

[Vouthon]

@shunyadragon in furtherance of the above, please read this very recent study published in December 2018 by Professor Jorgen Moller, in a peer-reviewed journal on the University of Cambridge's website:

The Ecclesiastical Roots of Representation and Consent | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core

The Ecclesiastical Roots of Representation and Consent

Perspectives on Politics, Volume 16, Issue 4, December 2018, pp. 1075-1084

Political representation and rule by consent were first developed within the Catholic Church following the eleventh-century Gregorian Reforms and the subsequent “crisis of church and state”. These practices then migrated to secular polities in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This was facilitated by the towering position of the Church in medieval society in general and the ubiquitous “areas of interaction” between religious and lay spheres in particular.

I document these processes by analyzing the initial adoption of proctorial representation and consent at political assemblies, first, within the Church, then in lay polities. These findings corroborate recent insights about the importance of religious institutions and diffusion in processes of regime change, and they shed light on the puzzling fact that representation and consent—the core principles of modern democracy—only arose and spread in the Latin west.

A focus on the ecclesiastical invention of representation and consent promises to shed light on the otherwise puzzling fact that—until their global spread in modern times— representative institutions only arose and spread within Latin Christendom or the Latin west.

Moreover, recent scholarship in political science has confirmed the importance of religious teachings and institutions for a host of other important developments, including economic growth and democratization, and Francis Fukuyama has emphasized the key importance of the medieval Catholic Church for the development of political order in Europe.

Finally, a focus on the way the Church invented and then spread representation and consent corroborates recent insights about the pervasive effects of diffusion—in the form of learning—for processes of regime change.​

And this study:


A History of the Middle Ages, 300–1500

Parliament in Medieval History

Medieval parliaments invented the concept of "representation" as a transference from the practice of monastic orders electing chapter representatives to go to periodic conventions to legislate their rules. Wherever "parliaments" developed, the usual result was to check royal authority; in part, because of these assemblies, absolute monarchy did not develop during the Middle Ages​

Parliamentary democracy, in the form of representatives elected by the body politic, emerged as a secular 'transference' from the governance model of Benedictine monasteries.


Benedictine - New World Encyclopedia

A Benedictine is an adherent of the teachings of Saint Benedict of Nursia (c. 480-c. 547), who is renowned as the author of the Rule of St Benedict - the most important and influential set of monastic regulations in the western Christian world

Beyond its religious influences, the Rule of St Benedict has been one of the most important written works in the shaping of Western society, embodying, as it does, the idea of a written constitution, authority limited by law and under the law, and the right of the ruled to review the legality of the actions of their rulers. It also incorporated a degree of democracy in a non-democratic society.​

Written constitutions, authority limited by law and under law, representation and the right of the governed to judicially review decisions of the executive...none of this existed in Ancient Athens but each of these concepts first arose within Benedictine monastic communities, before being copied by secular state-builders.

Representative assemblies of the nobility, clergy and commoners that were consulted in the deliberations of a monarch's court, didn't exist in the ancient context but by the High Middle Ages had spread out from the Cortes in Spain (1180), to the Estates-General in France, to the House of Commons in England (1265), the Diet in the Holy Roman Empire (1250), the Sejm in Poland (1367), the Riksdag in Sweden, the Veche in Novgorod (Russia) etc.

You can certainly continue to deny this but it must be evident to readers of this thread by now that you are quite clearly ignoring the evidence and seem to regard medievalists, experts in their field, with scorn.

It is tiring to debate with you when easily corrected tropes and misconceptions keep being resurfaced despite prior refutation: such as the idea that "divine right of kings" was the norm in the middle ages, when in fact this is associated with the Age of Absolutism after the Protestant Reformation absolute monarchy never developed in the porous, divided monarchies of the medieval period, which were actually quite decentralized.

See also, this study by Professor David Stasavage, Department of Politics (NYU):

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nt_Why_They_Arose_in_Europe_and_Not_Elsewhere


Medieval Western Europeans developed two practices that are the bedrock of modern democracy: representative government and the consent of the governed. Why did this happen in Europe and not elsewhere?

Medieval Western Europe was witness to two important and long-lasting political innovations, the practice of political representation and the tradition that rulers should obtain consent from these representatives when governing.

Important scholarly work in political science has acknowledged and emphasized the European origins of consent and representation (Pitkin 1967, Pocock 1975, Finer 1997, Manin 1997, Skinner 2002, Urbinati & Warren 2008, Schwartzberg 2014). Further work has analyzed when and where representative institutions developed in medieval Europe, and what the consequences were (North & Thomas 1973; Bates & Lien 1985; Levi 1988; North & Weingast 1989; Kiser & Barzel 1991; & Thomas 1973; Bates & Lien 1985; Levi 1988; North & Weingast 1989; Kiser & Barzel 1991; Downing 1992; Ertman 1997; Acemoglu et al. 2005; Stasavage 2010, 2011; Abramson&Boix 2014; Boucoyannis 2015a,b).

During the two centuries after the first millennium, Europeans developed
practices of representation and consent that would spread to varying degrees throughout the continent. These practices were unique in comparison with developments in Song China, the Byzantine Empire, or the Abbasid Caliphate. In Western Europe the idea developed that whether one was in an autonomous city republic or a territorial monarchy, those who governed ought to somehow obtain the consent of citizens or subjects.

The Latin phrase most frequently used to express this was quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet, or “What touches all should be considered and approved by all.” We can find variants of this expression in an early city constitution of Florence from the late 13th century (Najemy 1979), just as we can find it in Edward I’s convocation of the Model Parliament in England in 1295. The origins of quod omnes tangit, which first appeared in medieval usage in the 12th century, are discussed in the next section. Several recent political theorists have emphasized the importance of this concept for the development of democratic theory (Pitkin 1967, Manin 1997, Schwartzberg 2014).

Professed adherence to the practices of representation and consent was widespread across the European continent throughout the medieval and early modern eras. In some cases this resulted in very real constraints on rulers.

Medieval Western Europeans developed a new and unique form of governance.

[Moreover] Aristotle’s works did not appear in Western Europe in Latin translation until around 1260, long after ideas about consent were developed and long after independent city republics had emerged. This point is also emphasized by Monahan (1987) and Skinner (2002).

The within-Europe evidence fails to support the idea that the rediscovery of the classical Greek polis led to the development of consent and representation.

Beginning some time in the 12th century, medieval Europeans applied the concept of quod omnes tangit in an entirely new way. The exact date for the concept’s reappearance is unclear, but it is certain that scholars associated with the newly founded University of Bologna were responsible for the development. The principle of quod omnes tangit in its new formulation was referred to by Gratian in his Decretum (ca. 1140), and it soon would be applied in both ecclesiastical and secular assemblies (Monahan 1987, Manin 1997). It was used by Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) for ecclesiastical assemblies (Congar 1958).

​

But, of course, you will probably dismiss all of these referenced scholarly sources....

The onus is upon you to prove the scholarly consensus of medievalists and political historians wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon in furtherance of the above, please read this very recent study published in December 2018 by Professor Jorgen Moller, in a peer-reviewed journal on the University of Cambridge's website:

The Ecclesiastical Roots of Representation and Consent | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core

The Ecclesiastical Roots of Representation and Consent

Perspectives on Politics, Volume 16, Issue 4, December 2018, pp. 1075-1084

Political representation and rule by consent were first developed within the Catholic Church following the eleventh-century Gregorian Reforms and the subsequent “crisis of church and state”. These practices then migrated to secular polities in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. This was facilitated by the towering position of the Church in medieval society in general and the ubiquitous “areas of interaction” between religious and lay spheres in particular.

I document these processes by analyzing the initial adoption of proctorial representation and consent at political assemblies, first, within the Church, then in lay polities. These findings corroborate recent insights about the importance of religious institutions and diffusion in processes of regime change, and they shed light on the puzzling fact that representation and consent—the core principles of modern democracy—only arose and spread in the Latin west.

A focus on the ecclesiastical invention of representation and consent promises to shed light on the otherwise puzzling fact that—until their global spread in modern times— representative institutions only arose and spread within Latin Christendom or the Latin west.

Moreover, recent scholarship in political science has confirmed the importance of religious teachings and institutions for a host of other important developments, including economic growth and democratization, and Francis Fukuyama has emphasized the key importance of the medieval Catholic Church for the development of political order in Europe.

Finally, a focus on the way the Church invented and then spread representation and consent corroborates recent insights about the pervasive effects of diffusion—in the form of learning—for processes of regime change.​

And this study:


A History of the Middle Ages, 300–1500

Parliament in Medieval History

Medieval parliaments invented the concept of "representation" as a transference from the practice of monastic orders electing chapter representatives to go to periodic conventions to legislate their rules. Wherever "parliaments" developed, the usual result was to check royal authority; in part, because of these assemblies, absolute monarchy did not develop during the Middle Ages​

Parliamentary democracy, in the form of representatives elected by the body politic, emerged as a secular 'transference' from the governance model of Benedictine monasteries.


Benedictine - New World Encyclopedia

A Benedictine is an adherent of the teachings of Saint Benedict of Nursia (c. 480-c. 547), who is renowned as the author of the Rule of St Benedict - the most important and influential set of monastic regulations in the western Christian world

Beyond its religious influences, the Rule of St Benedict has been one of the most important written works in the shaping of Western society, embodying, as it does, the idea of a written constitution, authority limited by law and under the law, and the right of the ruled to review the legality of the actions of their rulers. It also incorporated a degree of democracy in a non-democratic society.​

Written constitutions, authority limited by law and under law, representation and the right of the governed to judicially review decisions of the executive...none of this existed in Ancient Athens but each of these concepts first arose within Benedictine monastic communities, before being copied by secular state-builders.

Representative assemblies of the nobility, clergy and commoners that were consulted in the deliberations of a monarch's court, didn't exist in the ancient context but by the High Middle Ages had spread out from the Cortes in Spain (1180), to the Estates-General in France, to the House of Commons in England (1265), the Diet in the Holy Roman Empire (1250), the Sejm in Poland (1367), the Riksdag in Sweden, the Veche in Novgorod (Russia) etc.

You can certainly continue to deny this but it must be evident to readers of this thread by now that you are quite clearly ignoring the evidence and seem to regard medievalists, experts in their field, with scorn.

It is tiring to debate with you when easily corrected tropes and misconceptions keep being resurfaced despite prior refutation: such as the idea that "divine right of kings" was the norm in the middle ages, when in fact this is associated with the Age of Absolutism after the Protestant Reformation absolute monarchy never developed in the porous, divided monarchies of the medieval period, which were actually quite decentralized.

See also, this study by Professor David Stasavage, Department of Politics (NYU):

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nt_Why_They_Arose_in_Europe_and_Not_Elsewhere


Medieval Western Europeans developed two practices that are the bedrock of modern democracy: representative government and the consent of the governed. Why did this happen in Europe and not elsewhere?

Medieval Western Europe was witness to two important and long-lasting political innovations, the practice of political representation and the tradition that rulers should obtain consent from these representatives when governing.

Important scholarly work in political science has acknowledged and emphasized the European origins of consent and representation (Pitkin 1967, Pocock 1975, Finer 1997, Manin 1997, Skinner 2002, Urbinati & Warren 2008, Schwartzberg 2014). Further work has analyzed when and where representative institutions developed in medieval Europe, and what the consequences were (North & Thomas 1973; Bates & Lien 1985; Levi 1988; North & Weingast 1989; Kiser & Barzel 1991; & Thomas 1973; Bates & Lien 1985; Levi 1988; North & Weingast 1989; Kiser & Barzel 1991; Downing 1992; Ertman 1997; Acemoglu et al. 2005; Stasavage 2010, 2011; Abramson&Boix 2014; Boucoyannis 2015a,b).

During the two centuries after the first millennium, Europeans developed
practices of representation and consent that would spread to varying degrees throughout the continent. These practices were unique in comparison with developments in Song China, the Byzantine Empire, or the Abbasid Caliphate. In Western Europe the idea developed that whether one was in an autonomous city republic or a territorial monarchy, those who governed ought to somehow obtain the consent of citizens or subjects.

The Latin phrase most frequently used to express this was quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet, or “What touches all should be considered and approved by all.” We can find variants of this expression in an early city constitution of Florence from the late 13th century (Najemy 1979), just as we can find it in Edward I’s convocation of the Model Parliament in England in 1295. The origins of quod omnes tangit, which first appeared in medieval usage in the 12th century, are discussed in the next section. Several recent political theorists have emphasized the importance of this concept for the development of democratic theory (Pitkin 1967, Manin 1997, Schwartzberg 2014).

Professed adherence to the practices of representation and consent was widespread across the European continent throughout the medieval and early modern eras. In some cases this resulted in very real constraints on rulers.

Medieval Western Europeans developed a new and unique form of governance.

[Moreover] Aristotle’s works did not appear in Western Europe in Latin translation until around 1260, long after ideas about consent were developed and long after independent city republics had emerged. This point is also emphasized by Monahan (1987) and Skinner (2002).

The within-Europe evidence fails to support the idea that the rediscovery of the classical Greek polis led to the development of consent and representation.

Beginning some time in the 12th century, medieval Europeans applied the concept of quod omnes tangit in an entirely new way. The exact date for the concept’s reappearance is unclear, but it is certain that scholars associated with the newly founded University of Bologna were responsible for the development. The principle of quod omnes tangit in its new formulation was referred to by Gratian in his Decretum (ca. 1140), and it soon would be applied in both ecclesiastical and secular assemblies (Monahan 1987, Manin 1997). It was used by Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) for ecclesiastical assemblies (Congar 1958).

​

But, of course, you will probably dismiss all of these referenced scholarly sources....

The onus is upon you to prove the scholarly consensus of medievalists and political historians wrong.

No wrong,but you are misrepresenting these references as having any thing to do with the separation of church and state.

ALL this is within the Roman Church and does not remotely relate to the separation of church and state because there was no secular state to be separate from. The Roman Church in this period remains the claim of Divine rule and did not acknowledge any sort of secular state.

 

[Vouthon]

No wrong,but you are misrepresenting these references as having any thing to do with the separation of church and state.

"Wrong", so you are saying now that you do concur with the scholarly consensus after all (belatedly)?

So you agree with these scholars that, to quote one of them (in the most recent study published only last December and referenced fully at the top of my previous post): "Political representation and rule by consent —the core principles of modern democracy—were first developed within the Catholic Church following the eleventh-century Gregorian Reforms and the subsequent “crisis of church and state”." and not in classical Greece because, to quote a different scholar writing in 2015 (and again quoted more fully above): "The within-Europe evidence fails to support the idea that the rediscovery of the classical Greek polis led to the development of consent and representation" and indeed "Aristotle’s works did not appear in Western Europe in Latin translation until around 1260, long after ideas about consent were developed and long after independent city republics had emerged."

Bearing in mind that @Augustus has been arguing precisely this from the start of this discussion and you have been unpersuasively, and without any substantive evidence, combating his stance.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are again conflating 'democracy' in its direct form, with representative liberal democracy. In the ancient context, democracy in ancient Greece and the populares or populist party in ancient Rome (the most famous senator to embrace this philosophy being the Dictator Julius Caesar) had not even a scintilla of of liberal thought behind it.

Here's a classics scholar, Professor Bethany Hughes, explaining it:

Democracy's roots are far from liberal

We take the term from ancient Athens, but Athenian democracy, the product of an age remembered as egalitarian and high-minded, bore almost no resemblance to ours.

From the harbour at Piraeus, Athenian oarsmen rowed out to claim new territories in the name of democracy. They were not always welcome. At Melos, all men were slaughtered, all women and children enslaved when the island preferred to "put our trust in our gods, to try to save ourselves" and preserve their liberty rather than accept Athenian-style democracy.

Little surprise, then, that when recording the "free cities" in league with Athens, there is sometimes a slip of the chisel: instead of "our allies" on inscriptions, the Athenians can refer to "the cities that we rule".

Kratos meant hold or grip, and the Ancient Athenian would have been under no illusion that he had a real, direct grasp on power. Six thousand citizens at a time could fit on the bare rock of the Pnyx, where they voted on how they should run their lives. There was no notion of individual liberty - all was enacted for to koinon, the commonality.

I remember listening to an American on Radio 4 shouting that, in a democracy, of course kids had the right to buy cans of spray paint and do what they liked with them. Athenians would have hooted: the babbling of a maniac.

The democratic club in Athens was also very small.

Athenian women were less than second-class citizens - Aristotle considers them sub-standard. They were thought to pollute. Female bodies were porous: evil could come oozing from open orifices, their mouths and eyes. And for this reason they were kept not only covered but veiled. The first hard evidence we have of the use of the full face veil comes from Athens.

In Ancient Greece, those who preferred a private to a publicly aware life were categorised idiotes. Idiots indeed.
​

I'm surprised that you don't seem to be reflecting on the fact that the greatest philosopher and thinker of the ancient world, Socrates, was executed by the Athenian demos for daring to question the city's traditions.

The Athenian assembly killed him in 399 BC (well compelled him to poison himself with hemlock, to be specific) because he had committed the crime of asebeia: “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”. Diopeithes’ decree went as follows:

"...Socrates commits a crime in not recognising the gods the state recognises, and introducing other, new divine powers instead. He also commits a crime by corrupting the young..."
​

The city observed a certain pantheon of gods, if you failed to "acknowledge" them or introduce new gods, then you are an "atheist" (denier of the gods) and deserve to be expelled or executed. His trial, according to the account left by Plato in his Apologia, included this exchange with his inquisitors:

Socrates: Or is it that you say I don’t recognise gods at all, and I teach this position to others?

Meletus: The second option: that you do not recognise gods at all.

Socrates: You are extraordinary, Meletus! Why do you say this? Do I not even recognise the sun or the moon as gods, as other people do?

Meletus: No by Zeus, judges, he does not! He says that the sun is a stone and the moon made out of earth.


​

Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World

Instilling belief in the gods, the Athenian insists, is absolutely essential to the functioning of a just society. Therefore, there must be penalties laid down against anyone who insults the gods, ‘either in deed or in word’. The qualification ‘or in word’ is striking, and reactivates memories of Diopeithes’ decree, almost 100 years earlier, which had come up with the revolutionary stipulation that piety consisted in proper belief as well as proper action.​

Socrates is the first person in history, that I know of at least, who was sentenced to death for having the wrong religious beliefs and supposedly corrupting society by expressing his contrarian philosophy. And it was "democratic Athens" that pioneered such intolerance millennia before the Spanish Inquisition or the Islamic Mihna.

There was no parliamentarism, human rights or constitutionalism in the Athenian model. No politicians, judges, civil servants. A small group of elite free citizens deliberated directly, without limitation by any rule of law or limited by a constitution or set of inviolable rights.

Again, this was a secularisation by 14th century monarchs of an originally theological concept first utilized within Benedictine monasteries, then by the institutional Church in the 12th century:

"...The church had already developed its own practice of holding representative councils out of a deep rooted conviction that the whole Christian community was the surest guide to right conduct in matters touching the faith and well-being of the church..." (Tierney 1995, p. 85)​

"...quod omnes tangit (“what touches all must be approved by all”) bec[a]me an important concept in the legal history of the Middle Ages. The canonists first used this principle to define the legal relationship between a bishop and his chapter of canons. Later, the maxim was introduced into ecclesiastical government where it supported the rights of the lesser members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to have a hand in the governing of the church." (Pennington 1970, p. 157)​

"Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) recognized the importance of the maxim, and it was he who probably brought it into canon law. The wording of the maxim varied from time to time, . . . but its importance in medieval political thought as well as canon law is undeniable. It was quoted by such conciliarists as Guilielmus Durandus the Younger, Marsilius of Padua, [and] William of Ockham."(Watanabe 1963, p. 53)​

"y the beginning of the fourteenth century, kings all over Europe were summoning representative assemblies of their noblemen, clergy, and townsmen. When they did, the reason they often gave for calling such assemblies was, “what touches all must be approved by all.” (Pennington 1970, p. 157) ​

I never claimed that Athenian democracy was representative of liberal democracy,neither is anything you claimed as the nature of the Roman Church. It is the philosophy writings of Solon (594 BC), Cleisthenes (508/7 BC), and Ephialtes (462 BC) that are the true roots of early democracy. Democracy did exist off and on in the early history of Athens.

The Athenian Democracy represents the early roots of democracy. There is absolutely nothing from the Bible nor the Churches that would be called 'liberal (?)' democracy in the secular world until possibly recent history.

The only early democracy in this period in Europe is represented only by the Swiss democracy dating to the 1350's maybe earlier by claims of tradition. Even that was a limited democracy in reality. As referenced early independent states and and Cantons in Europe were ruled by heavy handed oligarchs that also claimed rule by Divine authority.

From: The History of Direct Democracy in Switzerland
Early direct democracy

The Swiss polity dates to the Bundesbrief of 1291, the first Federal Charter uniting the cantons of Schwyz, Uri, and Unterwalden in a defensive alliance. In 1332 Lucerne joined the alliance; and in the 1350s, the Confederacy expanded to include Zürich, Bern, Glarus, and Zug. Although modern popular mythology sometimes characterizes the early alliance as an idyllic mountain democracy, most historians paint a less utopian picture. Like much of Europe in the Middle Ages, the Swiss cantons were ruled by local oligarchies that used a heavy-handed approach in dealing with the peasantry. However, the Swiss peasants are generally thought to have enjoyed a wider range of rights and freedoms than existed in most contemporary societies; the fact that the population was armed and skilled in battle undoubtedly helped to mitigate the oppressive instincts of Swiss rulers. An impressive string of fourteenth-century military victories left little doubt as to the martial proficiency of the Alpine peasantry. The text of the Bundesbrief itself, which describes the union of 'the men of Uri, the corporate body of Schwyz', and 'the commune of the lower valley of the Unterwalden', suggests a degree of popular involvement in the forming of the alliance.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Wrong", so you are saying now that you do concur with the scholarly consensus after all (belatedly)?

So you agree with these scholars that, to quote one of them (in the most recent study published only last December and referenced fully at the top of my previous post): "Political representation and rule by consent —the core principles of modern democracy—were first developed within the Catholic Church following the eleventh-century Gregorian Reforms and the subsequent “crisis of church and state”." and not in classical Greece because, to quote a different scholar writing in 2015 (and again quoted more fully above): "The within-Europe evidence fails to support the idea that the rediscovery of the classical Greek polis led to the development of consent and representation" and indeed "Aristotle’s works did not appear in Western Europe in Latin translation until around 1260, long after ideas about consent were developed and long after independent city republics had emerged."

Bearing in mind that @Augustus has been arguing precisely this from the start of this discussion and you have been unpersuasively, and without any substantive evidence, combating his stance.

Political representation in a democracy outside the church is what I argue as truly representing separation of church is my argument,and neither you nor @Augustus have presented anything to support this outside the Divine unconditional rule by the Roman Church.

The early independent city states, before 1260 were not democratic,nor was there any separation of the Divine ruled state, and a secular state, which did not exist.

 

[Vouthon]

I never claimed that Athenian democracy was representative of liberal democracy,neither is anything you claimed as the nature of the Roman Church. It is the philosophy writings of Solon (594 BC), Cleisthenes (508/7 BC), and Ephialtes (462 BC) that are the true roots of early democracy. Democracy did exist off and on in the early history of Athens.

The Athenian Democracy represents the early roots of democracy. There is absolutely nothing from the Bible nor the Churches that would be called 'liberal (?)' democracy in the secular world until possibly recent history.

*Sigh* why, oh why my friend, do you keep ignoring the evidence?

You must understand how wearisome it is to be participating in a discussion with someone who, no matter how much scholarship and source material you reference, keeps repeating the exact same flawed claims without adequate justification in the literature.

And let's be fair here, I never "claimed" anything. These are not my arguments. Experts in the field of medieval studies and intellectual history, whom I am copiously quoting for you, did.

Your disagreement is with them, not me. Their words and references to their studies, so that you can read up on them, are all there if so inclined at some stage. I'm just the messenger conveying their prodigious academic work.

 

[shunyadragon]

*Sigh* why, oh why my friend, do you keep ignoring the evidence?

*Sigh* why, oh why my friend, do you keep ignoring the evidence?

You must understand how wearisome it is to be participating in a discussion with someone who, no matter how much scholarship and source material you reference, keeps repeating the exact same flawed claims without adequate justification in the literature.

You must understand how wearisome it is to be participating in a discussion with someone who, no matter how much scholarship and source material you reference, keeps repeating the exact same flawed claims without adequate justification in the literature.

 

[Vouthon]

*Sigh* why, oh why my friend, do you keep ignoring the evidence?


You must understand how wearisome it is to be participating in a discussion with someone who, no matter how much scholarship and source material you reference, keeps repeating the exact same flawed claims without adequate justification in the literature.

I leave that to the judgement of the folks reading this discussion.

But, needless to say, pinging my own words back at me does not refute the accuracy of my original criticism.