|
Post by John E on Feb 21, 2011 11:58:16 GMT -5
Let's also not forget either that people in the middle ages REALLY believed in their religion, to an extent that's hard to imagine today. So the idea that the high-ups in the church were only concerned with gaining and maintaining power, that their motivations were secular, rather than genuinely religious, spiritual and altruistic, is not accurate. I'm sure there were some people like that, and as I alluded to earlier, organizations do tend to act in their own self interest, even if the people running them aren't thinking about it in those terms, but as a rule, I think it's too modern a perspective to apply.
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 21, 2011 12:55:29 GMT -5
Also true: Higher up members of the Church were good at trying to influence things behind the scenes (again, Robert the Bruce comes to mind - roughly the majority of Scottish clergy backed him in his wars against England) rather than openly (although this did become more apparent in the Second Wars of Independence. Another point is about the charity work done: While there would have most definitely been those higher up who saw it as good for what we'd now call PR, there would also have been a lot (possibly more) who saw it as altruism: Certainly those who worked with Lepers and later on those who worked with those dying of plague certainly seemed to have done so out of a sense of duty and care. In some cases (such as the Monks of Alva) they worked so well as to prevent outbreaks to other areas, despite it meaning they would lose their own lives in the process. I don't think the modern western mind really comprehends just how involved in day to day real world care the Church was in the period discussed. ALL medical care, homeless charity, aged care, nursing home and paliative style care, orphan care, and lets not forget education, was conducted by religious organisations. We're not talking about a hospital with a saint's name over the door either, we're talking staffed and run by members of holy orders. You think the mediaeval period was bleak? Without the church, it would have been a great deal worse. It also involves the ordinary people from the grassroots up: Those who were made landless would often find the church would give them somewhere to stay - a monk or priest who was good at agriculture was a rarity, but a layperson could work church lands for them. Another thing they did for a long time was grant sanctuary (defiling a church leads to excommunication) to those on the run or those whose lands were invaded - in the Wars of the Roses, many priests risked their lives to protect their parishoners in this way, also in the 100 years war, not to mention the near-constant warfare that Scotland suffered in the 15th century
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Feb 21, 2011 13:21:15 GMT -5
You understand what a false dichotomy is, right? If you heard a fundie making similar statements about, say, Obama... think you'd respond to them as though they were being reasonable? If someone told me that when Obama gives his usual speeches about loving the American people so much and wanting only to bring about a golden age for the benefit of all, that he'd more speaking for the sake of winning votes or some other political maneuvre(sp?) rather then expressing a genuine opinion, I'd agree wholeheartedly. False Dichotomy: There are only two numbers, 100 and 0. Nothing exists inbetween.
|
|