The contribution of the Holy Inquisition to civilization (no it is not a joke)


This is a re-post of an article of Theodotus blog (translation posted here)

To defend and justify the Holy Inquisition is the exact opposite of Political Correctness. But as I have nothing to do with PC, I am happy to present the real history of this medieval institution. Even the biggest critic of the Holy Inquisition, the American Quaker historian Henry C. Lea (1825 – 1909), was forced to admit that “The aim of the Holy Inquisition was the same as the aim of Civilization.” Indeed, even the most fanatical anti-Catholics, agree that the Holy Inquisition effectively countered the suicidal beliefs of the Cathars (who were against childbirth), the vandalism of the Anabaptists (who believed in destroying all art works), the murderous tendencies of Fra Dolcino, (who wished to kill every sinner), the “Brothers of the Free Spirit” )who wished to remove from public office everyone who was not “enlightened”).

All these victories for sanity were due to the Holy Inquisition. Today, no-one would be crazy enough to believe that God created some just to damn them for eternity. But, that was for centuries, the protestant dogma, and the cause of terrible wars that bled Europe. It is due to the Holy Inquisition, that Spain wasn’t touched by such have religious wars.

We should also remember that the famed University of Salamanca (one of the best and oldest in Europe), was created by an Inquisitor, and that the conversation about the rights of American Indians took place under the aegis of the Spanish Holy Inquisition. In this, we could even say that the Holy Inquisition was one of sources of modern day international human rights.

To understand how the Spanish Inquisition developed we have to understand Spanish history. In 1492 that country had just completed its national Reconquista, after eight centuries of occupation of a large part of its territory by the Moors. It thus had two really powerful national minorities in it: one of the biggest Jewish communities in the world as well as the Muslims.


See the rest of this interesting article here.

Original Greek post can be found here.

Different. And yet the same!? [Shhhh! Homosexuality subject…]

While the US Supreme Court was considering two related cases involving the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, one major question informing that decision was whether scientific research had achieved consensus regarding how children of same-sex couples fare. Determining the extent of consensus has become a key aspect of how social science evidence and testimony is accepted by the courts. Scientists found that the literature on outcomes for children of same-sex parents is marked by scientific consensus that they experience “no differences” compared to children from other parental configurations. (1, 2)

So there it is.

Grow a child with a father and a mother.

Now CHANGE things.

Grow a child with two fathers.

Now tell them that everything is the SAME.

They will believe you.

You are a “scientist” after all.

And no, this has NOTHING to do with human rights, equality et cetera! All people have the same rights. Anyone can love whoever he/she wants. No one is against homosexuals here. I am just against trying to pass the abnormal as the new “normal”. As simple as that. Children are created the way Nature dictates. And this is what is “normal”. Anything different is exactly that: DIFFERENT! And hiding that under the rag does not make it go away…

The curse of politically correct and why babies are brought by the stork…

> Help translate the Harmonia Philosophica book in 6 new languages and get valuable perks in return! Support the Indiegogo project now!

Any household in the UK wanting to access internet pornography will have to opt in to do so under new proposals laid out by prime minister David Cameron today. The move is designed to help parents prevent their children from viewing adult material online, but critics say filtering will be difficult to implement and could block legitimate websites. (1)

Children are brought by the stork.

Who are we to say otherwise to anyone who wants to know different?

Ban everything!

But then again, do not wander what you must do to make kids once you find yourself with a nice lady in bed. Just… wait.

The stork will come!

Nobel prizes, literature, ideology, prejudice

Declassified documents of the Swedish Academy for Nobel nominations, show that the quality of ones work is not the sole criterion on which its members decide. During the analysis of the candidates for the year 1962, it is revealed that Graves was rejected (as Schueler revealed) because even though he had written several historical novels, he was still primarily seen as a poet.  Blixen, author of Out of Africa, rendered herself ineligible by dying that September, and it was decided that “Durrell was not to be given preference this year” – probably because “they did not think that The Alexandria Quartet was enough, so they decided to keep him under observation for the future”. Also a candidate in 1961, Durrell had in the previous year been ruled out because he “gives a dubious aftertaste . because of [his] monomaniacal preoccupation with erotic complications”. Committee member Henry Olsson was also reluctant to award any Anglo-Saxon poet the prize before the death of Ezra Pound, believing that other writers did not match up to his mastery; but without wanting to give the prize to Pound since he dismissed him in response to his political stance (something which is just funny for Sweden, which cooperated excellently with Hitler for so many years…). It is not clear why Anouilh was passed over, but the French poet Saint-John Perse had taken the Nobel in 1960, meaning that France was well represented on the roster of winners.

Looks more like an episode from Dynasty huh?

Art is and should be a window to the soul (ars gratia animae). Not a place for political or personal disputes. And if an artist is better than the other, he should be awarded the first prize. His political thoughts have nothing to do with that. Artists were and still are people in the margin of society. Political correctness has no place in their world. And maybe that is why perhaps the best artists are those who deny any prizes at all (or those who do not hunt those prizes).

Not because they do “art for art”. But just because they do NOT CARE at all for what they do. They just do it.

And whetever comes directly from the soul is more likely to be true.

Exit mobile version