(June 11, 2012 at 2:39 am)Aiza Wrote: I don't deny there was probably people who were atheists they just never suffered on the level that Christians were. I am not even sure how much Łyszczyński counts as that "precedence" which kept atheists in fear since he wasn't killed til the 17th century (toward the end of the Renaissance period), so for the bulk of Christian history, no atheist had ever been killed for being atheist. But yes, your own analysis of the situation seems to be pretty sensible, especially with respect to why atheism really wasn't much of an issue in the day--being unmentioned in the Roman Catechism and only mentioned very offhand in the Douay Catechism of 1649 for example.
No atheist had been killed that we know of. Remember, this case was a bit special because it was a nobleman, and this WAS towards the end of the Renaissance which was also the end of the church's virtually-final say in the political affairs of Europe. This DOES prove that there was basically a death-by-torture-and-decapitation policy in place by the church for the crime of atheism. And one has to consider that if this law existed, it was probably exercised quite often, considering that the man who ratted out our Polish nobleman seemed to see using this against him to get out of paying his debts was quite valid. If it was really all that vague and unheard of, I doubt he would have bothered. Hell knows there are a ton of laws we technically break every day and we never know of it. Shit, did you know that it's illegal to open an umbrella in the street because it "could spook horses?" This is actually a federal law! When was the last time someone was prosecuted for THAT, I wonder? Bet you none of the modern police force even have heard about it. And I sure as hell wouldn't think to rat on a hated enemy for opening an umbrella in the street to get back at him in some way; who would? Now, if he was blackmailing someone? Having sex with minors? A rapist? And I found out? Bet your ass I'd report him instantly...shit, I wouldn't even need an ulterior motive.
Quote:That being said (because I always have to nitpick it is in my natureMost Islamic terrorists who are not the rank-and-file, you mean. The suicide bombers, the guys with AK-47s, often uneducated. Now if you mean the guys who craft the bombs, design them, plant them without blowing themselves up? Yes, those are the educated ones, and rarely actually join for the religious reasons but actually, as you said, for a vendetta. But by and large, the "dumb grunts" of the organizations ARE the "dumb grunts." Which is why they're expendable, too. Do you send the guy capable of building the bomb, of whom there are precious tens or scores, to blow himself up? Or do you send the starry-eyed zealout, ignorant of everything but his master's word, of whom there are hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?), um, most Islamic terrorists are actually relatively well educated: engineers being one of the most overrepresented professions: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/bruce-h...rists-4080 . They are basically young male intellectuals angry at the West. Though that might be another issue for another thread.
Quote:Also the Renaissance is different from the Enlightenment, the Renaissance was a cultural blossoming from 14th-17th centuries starting in Florence, Italy with devout Catholics Dante and Petrarch; and the Enlightenment was an 18th century philosophical movement which started with Locke and Voltaire and all those other famous 18th century philosophers. (followed by the Romantic movement in backlash to that)
It can get a bit "technical" there but many people tend to equate the Renaissance as the precursor to the Enlightenment and therefore tend to consider it part of the "Enlightenment era" even if not part of the Enlightenment itself. I'm one of those people, since I connect the events within the Renaissance as being many of the direct precursors to the Enlightenment itself.
Take in mind that I am not arguing the idea of atheistic persecution because I WANT to believe that atheists have been persecuted. It would not affect me regardless. I was not alive in those days, so I have no personal feelings about it. I DO, however, think that all crimes against humanity should never be forgotten and that those who perpetrated them should never escape justice in some way. If those guilty are dead and gone, then their memory should be spat upon, like individuals such as Hitler and Stalin, and devoid of any reverence or respect. Do I feel any animosity from the catholic church today directly? Well, the Pope hasn't deemed it necessary to come to my house and spit in my face, so...I'm going to have to say "no" to that. But the followers themselves...yes, I get a decent bit of bile and spite sent my way every so often and for the most part my issue is with them, but invariably when people start using their texts or preachers' words to justify it, then my complaint has to climb the chain. And responsibility carries that pretty high, sometimes; usually all the way to the top.
