Re: God and Religion
For one poster, it's indeed a show of "historical" knowledge or rather knowledge of the history revised by Enlightenment propaganda, historical knowledge for its own sake, for bragging in a way. For the other, well for me, it's proving the point that I made when I responded to you:
It's the Enlightenment, which means the Left-wing that implemented libertarianism and hence the capitalist exploitation of the proletariate. Not the Right-wing
He's of course never addressed that issue. Even other posters on this thread who have ideas closer to him made him realise that he was missing the point. Each time I raised my point, he kicked into touch and moved to another topic that he thinks he can handle but even then he's only saying more historical untruths. It's tedious in the end.
I prove that the Left-Winged Enlightenment was instrumental in the advent of capitalism because they advocated and eventually gained the suppression of the workingmen's guilds. I could have added all the village communities and the French "compagnons". The Enlightenment destroyed all the associative, communitarian life that had existed for centuries Under the Old regime, so I'm laughing with the back of my head when I see that some leftists call themselves "socialists".
I'm encouraging those who don't take my words on face value to documentate about the workingmen's guild of the Middle Ages and how they ended. It's fascinating.
But I could give much more evidence that the Enlightenment paved the way for the capitalist system. I've already showed how Turgot implemented the liberalisation of grain price. Until the Enlightenment the King was indeed the Feeding Father of his people, even Louis XIV! The old regime had the "Royal Grain Police" to make sure that no baker are selling their bread above the price fixed by the monarchy in order to make sure that bread is affordable to anyone, such was the scare of a famine. Despite all the fastuousness of the Versailles Court, the Sun King has NEVER suppressed the grain police, so yes he was still the Feeding Father of his people.
Physiocrat Quesnay attempted the liberalization by 1763 but was readily dismissed by King Louis XV when the King realised the damage done. Same for Louis XVI after Turgot's reform in 1774 but that was very harmful. The monarchies had had grain reserved in any towns in case of shortage, Turgot had them emptied in order to reduce the price. Once the reserve are emptied, of course, price went up again and there was no reserve. The people were starving, it's the start of a revolt known as the Flour War
I could add other arguments such as Turgot's pleed for the legalisation of usury (you all know that the Church as well Islam condemned usury as a mortal sin, money is not a good like any other, just like bread is not a good like any other).
I also could refer to the Tragedy of Commons which started in England with the Anglican Revolution, at the expense of Catholics. Saint Thomas More referred to it many times in his Utopia (which he printed in Belgium, by the way). But two centuries later, the Physiocrats (which I remind you is a branch of the Enlightenment) took the idea back and advocated for the right of Enclosure at the expense of the Grazing Lands. For centuries the Grazing right had enabled the poorest peasants to feed their beasts on common AND private lands after the crop season was over. Ethis de Noveant was one such libertarian/physiocrat who considered grazing rights as barbaric rights “which could only come from centuries of ignorance” (1767). So these progressives considered those deeply rooted social traditions as barbaric! The working class was “conservative”.
I can also point to the Enlightenment's support for the Slave Trade (Voltaire made a fortune out of it), I could point to the new Republican calendar which divided the calendar in 10-day weeks instead of 7-day, which means one day off in 10, instead of one day off in 7. I could generally speaking point to their hatred to the Church for guaranteeing 85 days of annual leave and another 70 days of halftime work. That was the Church's major crime in their view.
If by Capitalism you mean the unlimited reign of money, then it definitely comes from Left-winged circles, more precisely from the Enlightenment matrix. They destroyed all the traditional obstacles to market determinism: the Church, the Family, the Patriarchal society, the medieval guilds, the village communities, etc. It's not even disputable when you study history in an honest way.
With regards to literacy, I see that my point that the Jesuits (and other Catholic orders) had enhanced free education for centuries is no longer disputed. However the stereotype that the Enlightenment have a Monopoly on good understanding is so childish that I find it again tedious to even discuss it. The Jesuits had observatories across Europe, their missionaries spread new discoveries all over to China, they translated Confucius' book into Western languages and most of all they welcomed Johannes Kepler in one of their uni, when Kepler was persecuted by the Lutheran clergy. Kepler remained a Protestant and worked along with Jesuits in order to state his Three Laws and in particular the one about the elliptic orbit of planets while the idiot Galileo (that present-day atheists still revere as a hero for defying the Church) still believe in the circular orbits of planets. Needless to say, the Jesuits all believe that the Sun was at the centre but none could prove it. Even Pope Urban VIII said it multiple times that he thought the Sun was at the centre.
That's all part of the whole Enlightenment lie. A guy lie kept on lying. His biggest lie might be the Man in the Iron Mask. How can anyone believe that he was a Louis XIV brother.
Also needless to say, Henri IV sincerely converted to Catholicism and respected the old tradition of the French monarchy. Queen Mum Catherine of Medici was the main driving force behind the religious peace. The Peace of Saint-Germain was her success (beside marrying her daughter to the future Henri IV). Of course rebels did not accept it and that led to St Bartolomew, where the situation went out of hand but she only ordered to eliminate the leaders of the rebellion, not 30,000.
Also, it's quite striking that the poster above there, defends the Jansenists and Protestants against the Jesuits. Though I won't claim that all Protestants are bad.
The main difference between Catholics and Lutherians or Calvinists is the predestination, right? It's the same that distinguish Catholics/Jesuits and Jansenists. So it speaks volume about that poster that he defends those people.
What do Judaites, Anglicans, Calvinists, Puritans, Jansenists and the Enlightenment (so atheists) have in common? They all believe that wealth makes you a good man. If you are rich, that means you are good. ANd you should never help the poor because thereby you encourage them to laze. It's all in their ideologies. The whole dirty reputation of the Jesuit order came from their propagandist activities, in particular that of the Jansenists who were very well represented in the French tribunals (the so-called Parliaments, nothing to do with present-day Parliaments) and had their minds constantly occupied with religious things while they were laymen. It's a violation of the traditional Christian distinction between the Temporal and the Spiritual. The greatest Jansenist achievement is the Civil Constitution of the Clergy on July 12 1790 when Church & State were not separated but the former got subordinated to the latter. In any French region where the Jansenists were strong, the priests massively took the oath to the Constitution. Where they were not, priests were refractory.
For one poster, it's indeed a show of "historical" knowledge or rather knowledge of the history revised by Enlightenment propaganda, historical knowledge for its own sake, for bragging in a way. For the other, well for me, it's proving the point that I made when I responded to you:
It's the Enlightenment, which means the Left-wing that implemented libertarianism and hence the capitalist exploitation of the proletariate. Not the Right-wing
He's of course never addressed that issue. Even other posters on this thread who have ideas closer to him made him realise that he was missing the point. Each time I raised my point, he kicked into touch and moved to another topic that he thinks he can handle but even then he's only saying more historical untruths. It's tedious in the end.
I prove that the Left-Winged Enlightenment was instrumental in the advent of capitalism because they advocated and eventually gained the suppression of the workingmen's guilds. I could have added all the village communities and the French "compagnons". The Enlightenment destroyed all the associative, communitarian life that had existed for centuries Under the Old regime, so I'm laughing with the back of my head when I see that some leftists call themselves "socialists".
I'm encouraging those who don't take my words on face value to documentate about the workingmen's guild of the Middle Ages and how they ended. It's fascinating.
But I could give much more evidence that the Enlightenment paved the way for the capitalist system. I've already showed how Turgot implemented the liberalisation of grain price. Until the Enlightenment the King was indeed the Feeding Father of his people, even Louis XIV! The old regime had the "Royal Grain Police" to make sure that no baker are selling their bread above the price fixed by the monarchy in order to make sure that bread is affordable to anyone, such was the scare of a famine. Despite all the fastuousness of the Versailles Court, the Sun King has NEVER suppressed the grain police, so yes he was still the Feeding Father of his people.
Physiocrat Quesnay attempted the liberalization by 1763 but was readily dismissed by King Louis XV when the King realised the damage done. Same for Louis XVI after Turgot's reform in 1774 but that was very harmful. The monarchies had had grain reserved in any towns in case of shortage, Turgot had them emptied in order to reduce the price. Once the reserve are emptied, of course, price went up again and there was no reserve. The people were starving, it's the start of a revolt known as the Flour War
I could add other arguments such as Turgot's pleed for the legalisation of usury (you all know that the Church as well Islam condemned usury as a mortal sin, money is not a good like any other, just like bread is not a good like any other).
I also could refer to the Tragedy of Commons which started in England with the Anglican Revolution, at the expense of Catholics. Saint Thomas More referred to it many times in his Utopia (which he printed in Belgium, by the way). But two centuries later, the Physiocrats (which I remind you is a branch of the Enlightenment) took the idea back and advocated for the right of Enclosure at the expense of the Grazing Lands. For centuries the Grazing right had enabled the poorest peasants to feed their beasts on common AND private lands after the crop season was over. Ethis de Noveant was one such libertarian/physiocrat who considered grazing rights as barbaric rights “which could only come from centuries of ignorance” (1767). So these progressives considered those deeply rooted social traditions as barbaric! The working class was “conservative”.
I can also point to the Enlightenment's support for the Slave Trade (Voltaire made a fortune out of it), I could point to the new Republican calendar which divided the calendar in 10-day weeks instead of 7-day, which means one day off in 10, instead of one day off in 7. I could generally speaking point to their hatred to the Church for guaranteeing 85 days of annual leave and another 70 days of halftime work. That was the Church's major crime in their view.
If by Capitalism you mean the unlimited reign of money, then it definitely comes from Left-winged circles, more precisely from the Enlightenment matrix. They destroyed all the traditional obstacles to market determinism: the Church, the Family, the Patriarchal society, the medieval guilds, the village communities, etc. It's not even disputable when you study history in an honest way.
With regards to literacy, I see that my point that the Jesuits (and other Catholic orders) had enhanced free education for centuries is no longer disputed. However the stereotype that the Enlightenment have a Monopoly on good understanding is so childish that I find it again tedious to even discuss it. The Jesuits had observatories across Europe, their missionaries spread new discoveries all over to China, they translated Confucius' book into Western languages and most of all they welcomed Johannes Kepler in one of their uni, when Kepler was persecuted by the Lutheran clergy. Kepler remained a Protestant and worked along with Jesuits in order to state his Three Laws and in particular the one about the elliptic orbit of planets while the idiot Galileo (that present-day atheists still revere as a hero for defying the Church) still believe in the circular orbits of planets. Needless to say, the Jesuits all believe that the Sun was at the centre but none could prove it. Even Pope Urban VIII said it multiple times that he thought the Sun was at the centre.
That's all part of the whole Enlightenment lie. A guy lie kept on lying. His biggest lie might be the Man in the Iron Mask. How can anyone believe that he was a Louis XIV brother.
Also needless to say, Henri IV sincerely converted to Catholicism and respected the old tradition of the French monarchy. Queen Mum Catherine of Medici was the main driving force behind the religious peace. The Peace of Saint-Germain was her success (beside marrying her daughter to the future Henri IV). Of course rebels did not accept it and that led to St Bartolomew, where the situation went out of hand but she only ordered to eliminate the leaders of the rebellion, not 30,000.
Also, it's quite striking that the poster above there, defends the Jansenists and Protestants against the Jesuits. Though I won't claim that all Protestants are bad.
The main difference between Catholics and Lutherians or Calvinists is the predestination, right? It's the same that distinguish Catholics/Jesuits and Jansenists. So it speaks volume about that poster that he defends those people.
What do Judaites, Anglicans, Calvinists, Puritans, Jansenists and the Enlightenment (so atheists) have in common? They all believe that wealth makes you a good man. If you are rich, that means you are good. ANd you should never help the poor because thereby you encourage them to laze. It's all in their ideologies. The whole dirty reputation of the Jesuit order came from their propagandist activities, in particular that of the Jansenists who were very well represented in the French tribunals (the so-called Parliaments, nothing to do with present-day Parliaments) and had their minds constantly occupied with religious things while they were laymen. It's a violation of the traditional Christian distinction between the Temporal and the Spiritual. The greatest Jansenist achievement is the Civil Constitution of the Clergy on July 12 1790 when Church & State were not separated but the former got subordinated to the latter. In any French region where the Jansenists were strong, the priests massively took the oath to the Constitution. Where they were not, priests were refractory.