Perverse Reasoning
Posted on 17 March 2011
The basic rule of any philosophy is that, if it leads one to absurd and impossible conclusion, something in the premise must be wrong, or an error made in the line of reasoning.
It seems some anti-homosexual posters were found in Shoreditch, Stoke Newington and broader East London, and the local LGBTQ activists wanted to organize a gay pride parade to show they are not intimidated by the hateful posters. Out There is a homosexual activist group, but opposes the parade, worried that the far right would use the pro-gay parade as an opportunity to stir up hatred against the Mohammedans.
Here is the link to the Open Letter by Out East:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/14/open-letter-to-the-organisers-of-east-end-gay-pride/
Jessica Geen writing in the same newspaper, presents the opposing point of view, and argues that the parade should not be canceled:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/14/east-end-pride-should-be-cancelled-gay-campaigners-say/
I heard about this news from Big Hollywood website, a somewhat sneering article by Greg Gutfield:
Let me quote two paragraphs from the Open Letter by Out East:
Out East believes that our response to homophobia must be political because homophobia is a system which is present everywhere and not only a hate feeling from particular groups or individuals. Homophobia is not caused only by one particular group but is part of broader society and has political roots. It is easy to portray other minorities (even unintentionally) as the cause of homophobia rather than, for example, questioning the lack of means to fight discrimination in a period of cuts in public services. Instead, we want to highlight the intersection between sexuality, gender, race and class oppression. Homophobia is fed by political practices and ideologies which in turn encourage individuals to commit discriminatory acts.
And:
We want both homophobia and islamophobia addressed as a collective problem and not feed one against the other, we do not recognise these as distinct categories. We will refuse any attempt to divide our communities or take the risk that an LGBTQ event is used to oppress other marginalised groups, in particular LGBTQ Muslims who will be the most affected by this rising antagonism.
My comment: The catastrophic inadequacy of modern education has left many a man people unaware of who, or when, or why, the ideas that form his bedrock assumptions were first invented. Most people who parrot Marxist axioms and assumptions have never read Marx, and would be offended to hear who their mentor is.
The axiom of the Marxist philosophy is that all ills of man are caused, not by the fall of man, but by the mechanics of historical forces, predominantly political and economic. Even such things as private hatred of one man for neighbor, stranger, and sojourner are ultimately caused by a failure of proper political institutions.
That seems to be the stance of Open East in the paragraph above. They name cut in funding to public services as the cause of enmity between Muslims and Homosexuals, rather than, for example, a personal decision, or the consensus of a community, or the teaching of a religion.
From this axiom, however, they reach the conclusion that it is tactically unwise to parade their cause in London, because the politics (in the broadest sense) of the situation means that this would offend or oppress the Mohammedans.
This is also Marxist, where “oppression” does not mean the use of the force of law to harass, rob and kill people, it means using the free speech of a public forum to express an opinion not flattering to the most sensitive and easily offended minority in the forum.
Meanwhile, the Mohammedan world view takes a somewhat more “Levitican” approach to gay-Muslim relations. Shariah law dictates cruel and Draconian penalties for homosexual acts, including flogging or death.
Obviously Shariah law is not yet firmly rooted in England (except, possibly, for certain financial laws, and some private binding arbitration): but the Muslims, or some of them, believe and say that the triumph of Shariah in England is only a matter of time.
One would suppose that any sign of cravenness in the face of an implacable enemy would serve only to encourage that enemy.
If that supposition is correct, the caution of Out East acts exactly contrary to their own notions of their cause and their self-interest.
Their logic has led them to an absurdity (1) They say Islamophobia is the same as Homophobia (2) they must oppose Islamophobia, and therefore support Islam (2) Islam is homophobic, therefore: they must support homophobia in the name of fighting homophobia.
No one can actually believe this.
My own theory (and I am a thoroughgoing supernaturalist) is that the Prince of the World controls the ways of this world. Hence, the world regards the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular as its main enemy: and when homosexuality is no longer a useful weapon to use to batter the Church and her sacrament of marriage into near-non-existence, the world uses a more violent and more clearly anti-christian weapon, Mohammedanism. And the first weapon, no longer useful, is dropped.
We have already seen in the last decade the speed with which feminism has been dropped when it clashes with Mohammedanism. Feminists fret about fictional income gaps with men, but ignore women being beaten, murdered or mutilated in their genitalia by their families, or forced into arranged marriages.
If this is how the world treats the cause of woman’s rights, when women represent more than half the race (and, in my opinion, the better half) how loyal with the world be to the few sexually abnormal persons who form a much smaller and less admired minority?
The world is not your friend. It will not serve your interests nor seek your happiness in this life or the next. The world will flatter you, exploit you, grind you between its teeth like a rind until you are dry, and then it will spit you out.
The Church is your friend and your mother. She loves you but will not flatter you. Hers is the voice of sanity, and will fill you up until your cup runs over.
“Their logic has led them to an absurdity (1) They say Islamophobia is the same as Homophobia (2) they must oppose Islamophobia, and therefore support Islam (2) Islam is homophobic, therefore: they must support homophobia in the name of fighting homophobia. No one can actually believe this.”
I suspect their own explanation of this discrepancy — assuming an explainer who is honest and brave enough to admit to an opponent that a discrepancy does appear to exist — would probably be to assert an error in definition: they sincerely believe that Islam (as opposed to formal shari’a law and specific theocratic-totalitarian governments) is not “essentially” homophobic, at least insofar as most actual Muslims practice it now or would (they presume) continue to practice it in a more “tolerant” pluralistic technological society, so this apparent conflict of interest does not in fact exist.
Examining this belief further, I think we can see the dangerously risky assumption underlying it: They believe that the politicized fanaticism currently sweeping the ummah and the tribal traditions not yet exorcised from it are accidental accretions, not inherent attributes, and can both in practice be divorced — by time and basic apathy, if nothing else — from “enlightened” Islam, the same way Christianity divorced State from Church, Protestantism divorced Church from conscience and the Enlightenment divorced conscience from absolute norms. Going even deeper, one gets a more bedrock form of the problem: They are gambling that the fundamental similarities of human nature will overcome, in practice, the fundamental differences of the belief systems.
I can’t conceal that I think this a far more dubious gamble than they do, or that they do not fully grasp the consequences of losing that gamble if they’re wrong; but someone truly committed might still consider the gamble worth making anyway, as a matter of principle, which I could reluctantly respect. (I just wish they wouldn’t keep trying to deny me the right to complain loudly about it.)
As usual, my explanation here assumes the best possible motives and the clearest possible (I do not say clear) thinking on the part of the espouser. I don’t know how characteristic this is of most arguers on either side. People being people, I don’t doubt that both sides have more, shall we say, pragmatic or personal motivations well mixed in. But I see the Devil as far less the Prince of the World than as the False Counsellor; the real horror of his work is how he can persuade people to use their highest ideals as fodder for their most vicious actions.
It is true enough that this may be the motivation in general. However, if you read the specific statement by Open East, they lay out their logic clearly enough: they regard “homophobia” as well as “Islamophobia” as by-products of an unevolved political-economic system.
Like scientists discovering the true and secret springs that move the clockwork machinery of the world, this theory regards the politics as paramount, the by-products as merely the tail wagged by the dog.
From that point of view, it is vain, perhaps counterproductive, to battle homophobia (or any other byproducts of the political economic system) without revolutionizing the political economic system to the next stage of Marxist evolution.
If battling homophobia by staging their parade provokes Islamophobia, then the current world-system is strengthened rather than weakened, because the Right Wing will use it as an excuse to gin up hatred against their fellow oppressed class, the Muslim. Hence, as a merely tactical provision, for Open End, this is not the battle to fight nor the ground on which to fight it.
I may have read too many Gnostic writers recently, but this type of dizzying fever-dream logic reminds me strongly of the Gnostics and their struggle against matter, time and the planetary spheres, and their opposition to the Old Testament God, Iadalboath, and his hierarchy of eons and emanations and evil angels, where the only right thing to do is the exact opposite of what morality and common sense might dictate.
Christianity is sanity. The modern nihilism is merely self-worship combined with the materialistic belief that the self is a helpless by-product of genetic mechanisms or social conditioning, that is, the belief that the self is nothing. Worship of the self plus the belief that the self is nothing equals the worship of nothing.
“If battling homophobia… provokes Islamophobia, then the current world-system is strengthened rather than weakened, because the Right Wing will use it as an excuse to gin up hatred…. Hence, as a merely tactical provision, for Open End, this is not the battle to fight nor the ground on which to fight it.
I may have read too many Gnostic writers recently, but this type of dizzying fever-dream logic reminds me strongly of the Gnostics and their struggle… where the only right thing to do is the exact opposite of what morality and common sense might dictate.”
Well, it does remind me somewhat of the medical philosophy that one should treat the disease rather than the symptoms; it is true that focusing too strongly on one particular symptom can give a disease time and opportunity to sicken the patient even worse. And heaven knows, “common sense” has its own demonstrable, and not insignificant, incidence of being in error compared to the counterintuitive truth.
Perhaps the Out Easters simply see themselves in the position of the physician who must tell the patient that contrary to what seems obvious, they should not attempt this particular treatment at this time, for it will do more harm than good; or in the position of the leader of allied multiple factions who will not disrupt the (nominally) common cause of all factions in favour of advancing one faction’s special interests.
These stances are respectable in principle, if they are arrived at honestly, without self-deception about the nature of the problem or one’s capacity to solve it in the name of desperate idealism or tribal stubbornness. The determination to solve a conflict is admirable; a false-to-facts conviction that there is no conflict, or no “real” conflict, is less so.
“Perhaps the Out Easters simply see themselves in the position of the physician who must tell the patient that contrary to what seems obvious, they should not attempt this particular treatment at this time, for it will do more harm than good”
I do not disagree. I merely point out that Gnostics use a similar logic to come to their counter-intuitive conclusions.
I am not condemning them for coming to a counter-intuitive conclusions. Many conclusions are counter-intuitive and true. I would be so bold as to mention Economics as a discipline that seems to consist of nothing else.
But I do look askance at their diagnosis of the problem: the disgust decent men feel for sexual perversion being caused by cuts to public funding? Really? The desire not to invite separatists and Jihadist violence from a non-assimilating minority into one’s community is also caused by the same thing?
This diagnosis is Marxist and otherworldly to the point of hallucination. The conclusion they draw, logical or otherwise, from these premises, namely that the the Mohammedan gay-bashers are allies or potential allies is risible to the point of grotesquery, unless, of course, as may be, conditions are far different in East London as elsewhere in the world. They live there, and know their neighbors, and I do not.
Since I do not know the facts on the ground, I am in no position to say whether this is the one spot on Earth where the Paynim and the Pervertarians should make a common cause against British norms of decency and civilization. History shows many odd bedfellows in politics, and many a Christian prince in the past has asked Muslim powers to aid his battles against fellow Christians, to the eternal shame of the Churches East and West.
” from “enlightened” Islam, the same way Christianity divorced State from Church, Protestantism divorced Church from conscience and the Enlightenment divorced conscience from absolute norms. Going even deeper, one gets a more bedrock form of the problem: They are gambling that the fundamental similarities of human nature will overcome, in practice, the fundamental differences of the belief systems.”
When people live in a society where their beliefs are not the common or popular ones they feel persecuted and have empathy towards other people that also are following beliefs that are not the common ones of the society. One of the hopes in doing so is that the sentiment will be reciprocated, but, even if not, there is a feeling that one understands some small part of what it is like to be the other. That seems to be what they are going after here, even though it may be misguided.
Considering how the protestants believe every man should be able to judge for themselves what is the truth according to the revealed word of God found in the Bible, I am not sure how they separated the Church from conscience. This especially when the reading of the Bible by the lay people was condemned at least as late as the 1870′s by the Catholic Church, as well as the separation of Church and State, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of the common people to govern the affairs of state, the reading of the bible in the vernacular by the common people, and ” that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone.” (Mirari Vos for the quote, see also INTER PRAECIPUAS, CUM PRIMUM, COMMISSUM DIVINITUS, INTER MULTIPLICES, QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, QUI PLURIBUS, Quanta Cura, and others (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/index.htm – is a good place to look them up)).
“Considering how the protestants believe every man should be able to judge for themselves what is the truth according to the revealed word of God found in the Bible, I am not sure how they separated the Church from conscience.”
Well, “separating the Church from conscience” is my admittedly hyperbolic way of saying the same thing you do: Protestantism was about, more than anything else, the rejection of the ordained clergy’s authority to mediate and judge the state of each individual’s personal relationship with Christ, and his or her access to salvation thereby.
I was using the term “the Church” incorrectly in that context to mean only the ordained clergy, rather than (in its correct sense) all worshippers both clerical and lay — but this incorrect sense of the term is one I’ve found very common to many who criticize the Church, and one which seems to me characteristic of many Protestant attitudes (and more than a few nominally Catholic ones as well), and it fit nicely the rhythm and logic of the argument I was building, so I indulged in some rhetorical-poetical license. Apologies for any insult or confusion thus engendered.
So a few months back on here I was discussing things of a similar nature. In that discussion a lot of similar claims to what you made were made. I brought up things like the Catholic church not allowing bibles in the common languages and not allowing people to read the bible as an example which considering I know of a relative (some umpteen generations back) of mine that was killed for translating the bible into English. It was then claimed that never happened, eg. the Catholic church never taught that and it was the reformation that did the killings for translation of the Bible. Turns out, what I originally thought was 100% right and didn’t go nearly far enough, the justification for not reading the Bible or having the commoners read it goes way back to Jerome (at least according to the encyclicals on the subject). Not only that but things like the Church claiming they have supplanted the Jews as Gods chosen people, totally multiple encyclicals that mention that and at least the one, very explicitly. Where as before I had just found personal letters and sermons and the writings of others that mentioned that subject there are actual official magistrarium documents laying out that exact sentiment.
As of right now I don’t have a high opinion of Catholics or the Catholic church, either they do not know what their Church previously taught or they knew and were lying about it under the assumption that no one would actually go through the archives to find out about it, probably under the assumption that the best place to hide things is in plain sight so no one looks at it. In the one they don’t even know what it is they believe, in the other they are claiming authority from God at the same time they are violating the commandments of God and breaking the covenants they claim to have made with God. Either way, well did Isaiah say “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.”
You had previously claimed that not only is the English translation wrong for a scriptural reference I gave (when the translation change suggested makes no difference to that scripture and I happen to have a catholic bible in Portuguese as well as another translation in Portuguese and in Portuguese the change you suggest doesn’t make the slightest difference in the first place in the entire chapter because it is the same word) but that the whole book is non-canonical which position has been condemned in the encyclicals. Then I see this thread where not only is separation of Church and State being claimed as a Catholic doctrine but also that all non-Catholics are not following their conscience when I have just been reading document after document after document condemning those very things and denying the common people not only the ability to read the word of God but make any decisions whatsoever in terms of governance or even which religion to participate in. Hence, the post.
My wife says I lack tact, which is true, I am sure there are much more tactful ways to say everything I have said and I am sorry for not being able to do so. Because I lack tact I will leave off here for now rather than continue as any way I can think of saying what I want to would most likely be extremely insensitive.
“Then I see this thread where not only is separation of Church and State being claimed as a Catholic doctrine but also…”
Except that this is not what I said. I said that the idea of a distinction between spiritual and temporal authorities, ecclesiastic and secular authorities, miter as distinct from crown, altar as distinct from throne, is a Christian idea found in no pagan and no Eastern civilization.
The Brahmin caste of India, and the imperial family of Japan, were one and the same with the ruling and propertied class. The imperial Mandarin bureaucracy in China is not a religious order, not a Church.
Both clergy and laity have, at different points in history, claimed absolute authority over the other, but the distinction of the Church as a different organization from the Empire goes back to the beginning of the Church, and has roots in the Jewish distinctions between Levites and the anointed kingship.
The doctrine of “separation of Church and State” as proposed by the Enlightenment writers and embodied in the US Constitution is, in effect, a truce between the warring factions of the Protestants, who support national churches where the King is the head of the Church, and the Catholics, who support an international church.
“the justification for not reading the Bible or having the commoners read it goes way back to Jerome (at least according to the encyclicals on the subject).”
I am confused, since Jerome translated the Bible into the vernacular – are you saying that Jerome was against the common people reading the Bible, or that the Magisterium was against Jerome translating it? (I will say that my understanding is that the Church has generally been against uneducated readers interpreting the Bible; the way this position was enforced, if at all, changes throughout history. When it comes to translation I only know about British history, but there it depended on the historical period – there were translations made in the Early Middle Ages by King Alfred and others which occasioned no Church opposition; when it came to the Late Middle Ages, there was a lot of Church opposition, at least partially because the translators were heretics or anticlericalists whose translations and commentaries slanted toward their own views, on subjects such as faith vs. works or transubstantiation.) Also complicating this picture is that most people throughout history have been illiterate, yet most Catholic churches during those periods had altarpieces which showed the Bible pictorially for the benefit of the common people. And to add yet another complication, the question of translation became ossified because the Vulgate was held up so highly (as it was SAINT Jerome), and there were worries about translations into later vernaculars introducing theological errors, and it took some time, and the Protestant Reformation, to eliminate that prejudice.
Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day:[l] they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher”common to babbling old women and crazy old men and verbose sophists,” and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status. Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge. INTER PRAECIPUAS
Although he also cites:
In his sacred writings, Peter, after praising the letters of Paul, warns that in these epistles “certain things are difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable distort just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, which also leads to their destruction.” He adds at once, “Since you know this beforehand, be on your guard lest, carried away by the error of the foolish, you fall away from your own steadfastness.”[2] Hence it is clear to you that even from the first ages of Christianity this was a skill appropriate for heretics. – INTER PRAECIPUAS
You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17] – UBI PRIMUM (Referencing Jerome)
That’s an interesting Jerome quote. I’m curious to know the context and how it relates to his own project of translating the Bible. I don’t know a whole lot about his writings.
I think it’s key in each case that it is about reading the Scriptures without a teacher, rather than being against reading/hearing the Scriptures period – and in the Jerome quote, it’s “the common people of the infidels” not Christian common people. As a teacher myself, I am generally in support of guided reading, though I can’t say I support every action every taken by the church against all translators and commentators, and I certainly am generally in support of Biblical translation although the original is to be preferred. I also understand the issues with having one special class who only gets to read the Scriptures. However, I’ve had discussions with a number of people (mostly atheists) who read scripture unguided, as well as other uneducated readers of philosophy and literature, and the errors made are gargantuan. It’s one of those insoluble problems having to do with freedom vs. rectitude.
They’re completely correct to worry about translators introducing anti-Catholic errors into their Biblical translations, too. I’ve read some of the Lollard/Wycliffe translations and commentaries, and they are mistranslations, or at the very least translations which intentionally downplay or prejudice arguments about transubstatiation and the like toward the Lollard’s own theological beliefs. Chaucer has some interesting things to say about this in the Canterbury Tales, specifically the Miller’s Tale. A good understanding of 14th c. England is helpful in this discussion. Translation was so completely tied in to the origins of Protestantism that it’s hard to say whether Protestants rebelled because the Catholic church condemned translation, or whether the Church condemned translation because Protestants were using it as an instrument of rebellion.
I know this sounds very pro-Catholic ra-ra-ra, but I only mean to lay out the arguments for the other side in a century in which all the biases are against it.
I also wonder whether those encyclicals are against Biblical translation in general or just against the Bible societies’ translations. Both of those encyclicals are from the 19th century, and there were already numerous Catholic translations into English, like the Douay-Rheims. I don’t know about other translations or how Catholic missionary work proceeded at the time, which would be a good comparison to the Bible societies. Regardless, there is certainly the same antagonism you see in the Middle Ages to unguided Bible reading.
Both reference the Council of Trent, which uses much the same language but references the most recent Lateran Council, which I assume means the 4th one. While extremely interesting the 4th Lateran Council was much less clear on translating or reading the scriptures, possibly because it was many times less of a problem and it appears that the Catholic Church was having more of a problem getting the priests and bishops to read anything, including the scriptures (among tons of other problems) then of large amounts of people reading things they shouldn’t be.
If that council (4th Lateran) had any of the desired effects I would almost say that it led directly to the reformation. That is, if some priests started taking their vows seriously (as the council suggests) and reading the bible (as suggested) then it is no wonder that some of them looked around at all the other stuff talked about in that council (both condemned by it and suggested by it) and had a strong reaction of questioning the validity of the Catholic Churches practices and teachings at the time, when compared with the Bible.
It was the 5th not the 4th that they were referring to.
This is related to something that is bothering me, and has been for a while that has been brought up again in the readings I have been doing:
Do the Catholics consider the Hindus to worship Idols? Expand that to Buddhism, Chinese ancestor worship, Shintoism, and Afro-Brazil religions. If not then why not? If so are you familiar with any or all of those religions justifications for what is considered Idol worship? How is it different from what you do?
Also, how is what you do different then what is described in Jeremiah 44:17-23?
“They name cut in funding to public services as the cause of enmity between Muslims and Homosexuals”
Its just British being British. If someone here gets drunk and falls down his own stairs he would blame that on cuts in funding of public services.
I’m still puzzled by this new-word “Islamophobia”. Why is there a word like that for only one religion. I have this distrust about Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism, do I have “Buddhismobhobia”?
“Why is there a word like that for only one religion?”
Because this is the religion which, at the moment, is in the position to do as much damage as possible to Christendom, the Christian civilization of Europe and her English-speaking and Spanish-speaking colonies. The Left are now and always have been the violent enemies or the legal opponents to Christian civilization in its each and every aspect. Christian civilization is monogamous and monotheistic, and introduced the notions of limited governments, Church and state in separate spheres, as far back as the Dark Ages. The Left will favor atheist, pagan, and Eastern beliefs over Christian whenever any come in conflict. They will favor totalitarianism over limited government in all cases except the case of sexual chastity, which they oppose, since monogamy and the sacredness of marriage is unique to Christendom. Other civilizations have marriage rites, of course, but none practice monogamy, and none make it a sacramental institution.
In order to humiliate, hinder, and hamstring opposition to the Jihad, who are currently their allies, the Left has introduced a term which, without any argument being made (logic not being their strong point) allow one in to utter a single word of sonorously many syllables to imply that all opposition to Jihadist enemies of civilization is not merely absurd, but a product of dangerous and vile mental disorder.
Could you please explain this separation of Church and State as far back as the Dark Ages? From the papal encyclicals I have been reading I am getting the impression that the Church was claiming absolute authority over the State, see Unam Sanctum by Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302. Then after the American Revolution began having effects on Europe belief in the idea of separation of church and state was condemned in the harshest of terms (Mirari Vos, Singulari Nos for examples) and the giving up of civil authority by the papacy in each state was called persecution and resulted in the excommunication of many people, including most of the people of Italy when the Papal States were taken from the Holy See (Respicientes). If there is a better source of the history of the governance and official beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church other than official papal encyclicals, please let me know.
We seem to be talking about two different topics. When I speak of “Christian civilization” I mean Europe, and, before it was conquered, the Middle East and North Africa. You are quoting a claim from the Magisterium of the Church circa 1300′s and later.
My statement was that, even as early as the Dark Ages there is a difference in law and culture between the ecclesiastical and secular power. Bishops were not selected by primogeniture, as Barons were. Civil was not the same as Canon law.
When Dante complains bitterly of the corruption of the Church by her assumption of secular wealth and power, he is not introducing some special idea known only to himself, or new to him, but referring to a separation in some respects as old as Constantine, or even Saul.
I did not make the claim that one side or the other did not make the claim to have jurisdiction over the other. Or else what was the dispute that led to the death of Thomas a Becket or Sir Thomas Moore all about? My claim is that there is no analogous separation of Church and Civic institutions among the civilizations of the Far East.
I have only been reading the ones that I can find translations into English. I have tried some that are just in Italian and Latin and to understand them I have to read them out loud to hear them and treat what I am hearing as though it were Portuguese, unfortunately some of it doesn’t translate well like that and I end up missing most of the encyclical. This especially as parsing what the encyclical is actually saying in the midst of all the fluff (I don’t know what else to call it) in English requires paying close attention so when reading the Italian or Latin most of what I am understanding with any degree of certainty are the biblical quotes that don’t tell me what they are really saying. Unfortunately this means that I am mostly getting the encyclicals from later than 1800 with only a few before then and none before 1200.
During the Vedic age in India weren’t the ruling and priestly castes different and of separate authority? Then later weren’t all of the twice born castes equally likely to be in a kingship with religious authority being separate?
It’s useful also to read surrounding literature on the encyclicals and not merely the encyclicals themselves. Also, since theological documents are in some sense in their own language, supporting literature is usually helpful in making a correct interpretation, especially of changing linguistic meanings. So, for Unam Sanctam, this will give a somewhat contemporary Catholic understanding: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm What this leaves out is much of the later history – Unam Sanctam specifically targeted Philip the Fair, who was excommunicated, then attacked and captured Boniface, who died a few days after release. (Boniface was also a scumbag, like most of the Renaissance Popes, and so was Philip – he’d caused the conflict by taxing half the clergy’s wealth and other attacks on the church’s authority – what we might call attacks on separation of church and state, from the state side.) With this context in mind, an understanding of why a Pope would assert a certain kind of temporary authority should be clear. However, to quote Wikipedia’s article on the encyclical, “Nobles, burgesses, and clergy met to denounce the Pope and pass around a crude forgery titled Deum Time (“Fear God”), which made out that Boniface claimed to be feudal overlord of France.” Note that it was in the FORGERY that Boniface claims to be feudal, i.e. political, overlord; as I’ll get into later, what Boniface was claiming in Unam Sanctam is something very different.
Also, in regard to encyclicals, while they have often been important, only in the last three papacies have they taken on the important character they have today, and are not necessarily considered infallible: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm Unam Sanctam is, as I understand it, rarely cited in later theology, and is mostly known because of how controversial it was even when written, and because Dante wrote the Monarchia to attack Unam Sanctam. I may be wrong on this point, however. For another such example, look up the forged Donation of Constantine.
On the subject of separation of church and state, the thing to keep in mind is that for most of history, Christian and elsewhere, especially in the West, the danger when it came to separation of Church and State was usually not from the Church’s side in the largest matters – Popes and bishops were deposed by kings and lords, not vice versa; Kings and lords chose bishops in defiance of the popes and not vice versa, and even claimed the right to appoint popes. Look up the Investiture Controversy for more. In the majority of pagan religions, the priests were in service to the state and appointed by the state. When it came to the medieval theory, the usual ideas were summed up in the “two swords” theory, which was interpreted variably as two completely separate spheres, temporal and spiritual; or as the spiritual side, being superior, having the right to appoint or recognize the temporal side, and then the temporal power is given over to those rulers, barring a loss of legitimacy (see Summa Theologica on the overthrow of illegitimate kings by the people as well). Unam Sanctam was stressing the latter. Obviously all this is complicated by things like the Papal States and such, but it has held basically true for Catholic history in times of monarchy. There were always certain things forbidden to the clergy, as well, which shows clearly that it was never a case of the spiritual sword having all the rights and the temporal none, which is the usual misinterpretation of Unam Sanctam.
The major ways in which the Popes asserted their spiritual power were through interdict and excommunication, both religious powers related to the spiritual sphere’s ability to give out the sacraments. These limitations were kept to fairly strictly, and rarely are there the sorts of pitched military battles one would see if church officials considered themselves to have temporal power (again the Papal States are an exception, as they were generally a very bad thing, imo). Church and state battles were so constant during the Middle Ages, however, that during one period the Church had to stop using interdict because it had lost its effect and people were going about their affairs quite happily without the sacraments. The conflict, by the by, supported the separation of church and state just as the fights within our separation of powers can, though we might wish for the two spheres to exist truly separately and harmoniously. This ended with the Reformation and the Enlightenment – some states claimed control over the religion, as in England; others reduced all religious involvement in public affairs, as in France (and actually, the Catholic absolute monarchy in France before the revolution was essentially caesaropapist, IE a state-controlled church).
In the case of the late 19th-century documents, they come from a time when there was a particularly strong wave of anticlericalism, and governments were stripping the Church of property and even, in some places, killing priests. You can see a relation between Unam Sanctam and Quanta Cura here – the strongest condemnations of the secular sphere come when the secular sphere is attempting to remove the rights of the religious. Part of the problem is that when looking at such historical episodes we often come today from an assumption of complete religious freedom and, thinking of the theocracies of the Middle East, privilege what we consider to be the pro-democratic forces. We have to examine our own cultural biases before hoping to understand medieval documents and others from previous periods.
I actually have been going through the papal encyclical site and reading all of them, so I not only didn’t know that Unam Sanctam was controversial when released I also didn’t know anything about how they are usually interpreted by anyone other than me.
I also happen to know that part of the reason the English lost the Norman invasion was because the papacy had declared William the rightful king of England and that the papacy did at other times have a powerful role in declaring who was the rightful successor of a monarch. I also know that Mirari Vos and Singulari Nos was in response to a catholic priest that had written pro-democratic pamphlets that from my point of view appear to be on par with the Federalist papers or John Locke in content. I do know that Quanta Cura is controversial because of writings from the two most recent Popes who very strongly disagree with much of Quanta Cura and the attached Syllabus of Errors.
I will certainly agree that the losing of political power in the papal states was, from my point of view, the best thing that ever happened to the Catholic Church. Where as Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Pius IX condemned the reading of scripture and were strongly pro-monarchy, pro-absolute rule of Church over State, and in keeping the lay members away from the scriptures the next two Popes, Leo XIII and Pius X, opened up the scriptures to more wide use, looked much kinder on democracy, and were less into condemning people for separating church from state (although Leo XIII did still think it a very bad thing in relation to the United States). In fact, where as Pius IX seems to have tried to have complete control over the state, Pius X seems mostly to be warning against the current format of separation of church and state which I do agree has gone to far.
Having the potential to have infallible statements in the LDS Church as well I do know how these things go.
I just read your article on encyclicals and it would appear the writers of that agree with my assessment at least of Leo XIII and Pius IX.
does the personal worthiness/righteousness of the Pope (or clergy in general) not matter?
Not when it comes to the validity of the Sacraments themselves; the state of grace, or lack thereof, of a cleric does not affect the spiritual potency and objective meaning of any Sacraments he performs. (There was actually a heresy about this, Donatism, in the 4th century; the Donatists held the opposite, that Sacraments performed by clergy not in a state of grace were invalid.)
When it comes to teaching, the (im)moral character of the cleric in general isn’t so much the point — we are all sinners to some degree or another, the Borgias were just an appallingly extreme example of this — as the degree to which the teaching actually agrees with Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. Teaching which agrees only partially but is wrong in some critical respects is considered heresy; teaching which rejects fundamental principles of the faith completely would be apostasy. Good men can teach bad things, and vice versa.
However, historical context — which includes the situation and other choices of the cleric in question — does have to be taken into account, as per Unam Sanctam.
“For I say unto you that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven” Matthew 5:20 I feel safe in saying, considering it is used in the encyclicals, that the Catholics are like the Mormons in that they believe that one usage of the Kingdom of Heaven is the Church.
“But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters”…”Ye cannot serve God and Mammon” Matthew 6:23-24
“Beware of False prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth froth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day Lord Lord have we not prophesied in they name? and in they name have cast out devils? and in they name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7: 15-23
“O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” Matthew 12:34 (33-35)
See also Matthew 14:7-8, Matthew 21:33-44
Am I to believe that the same God that struck down Ananias and Sapphira for lying, that struck down countless of the children of Israel in the wilderness for uncleanliness, that slew even many of the priests for various personal iniquity in the wilderness, that later removed the high priest and his entire family from the priesthood for unrighteousness, that commanded strict personal cleanliness both outward and inward of his priests, that commands those that are baptized to be holy, that has Paul give strict qualifications for Bishops such that they be holy does not hold those that claim Apostolic Authority and the higher priesthood to that same standard of worthiness?
How do they produce good fruit which are evil?
Here is what I believe on the subject:
“Behold many are called but few are chosen, And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world and aspire to the honors of men that they do not learn this one lesson – That the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that they powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.” – D&C 121:34-38
That is from a revelation given to the Prophet Joesph Smith from God. Was he perfect? No, only Christ lived a perfect life but he gave his life and did “do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God”. (D&C 132: 60) No one takes the authority of God unto themselves except they are called of God as was Aaron by those that have authority with the laying on of hands, this authority can not be bought or sold but is given freely to all that come unto Christ and live worthily. That is what is consistent with how God operates in the Bible and I know that this power is real and can only be used while we are worthy to use it. Rather then it and the knowledge of God be kept to the few clergy they are given to all that live worthy so that we may become holy nation, a peculiar people, so that young men and women may prophesy and have visions as foretold by the ancient Apostles. There are gods many and lords many as testified by Paul but for us there is one true and living God that does not change or move in the way he operates. He called Prophets in the past and He calls them today, when holes in the Quorum of the Twelve occur they are filled as happened after Judas’s betrayal in Acts.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Let everyone judge for themselves what is right, as it is given to everyman to know between good and evil they are free to do so. “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may” Articles of Faith 11.
See also D&C 101: 77-80.
Beware, good sir; even a doofus like me can quote Scripture. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” “Judge not, lest you be judged; for with what measure you judge, by that measure also shall you be judged.” “Take the beam out of your own eye first, and then you shall see better to remove the mote from your neighbour’s.” And with regard to knowing where and how God exercises or bestows His power, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding.” (Job 38:4)
Veering off the quote-war tip, because it’s unproductive and because (my urge to flaunt my own cleverness aside) I understand your point, no one’s saying that immoral clergy cannot lead others into sin by bad example, or lose their own salvation thereby. The Catholic stance is simply that losing the state of Grace doesn’t render any Sacraments they perform thereby null and void (which is really only fair to all those dependent on the cleric for those Sacraments — one fallen priest could plunge an entire community into sin otherwise). As the Catechism states via St. Augustine, “Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.” (CCC 1584)
You yourself say above “Only Christ lived a perfect life….” and then later “this power… can only be used while we are worthy to use it.” If only Christ lived a perfect life, it seems to me that by definition, that means none of us can be worthy to exercise heavenly authority; that if it is given to men at all because it is needed to help make salvation possible, it is not given on condition of a perfection God knows we cannot achieve in this life on any but the most temporary and incidental basis (though we are all called to try nonetheless), but with the full understanding that it is a Gift — not something we have truly earned or can rightfully use as we will, but not something that is only left with us on condition of perfectly virtuous behaviour, either.
God wreaks many forms of punishment upon clerical sinners, and individual bad ministers may be halted from ministering if their own sins make it impossible for the congregation to take their teaching seriously (or unsafe to be placed in any congregation). But those punishments don’t make those clergy not clergy; they only make them fallen or ineffective clergy — just as cheating on your wife doesn’t make you no longer her husband, it only makes you a bad husband. Once ordained, always ordained: “Thou art a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 7:17)
All of us sin but we all have the chance to repent all the time and to renew our covenants that we make at Baptism each week with the taking of the Sacrament (of the Lord’s Supper). Just as the Israelites could repent and make sacrifices for the sins they had committed as often as they committed sins so to we can be partakers of the great and last sacrifice consistently. However, sinning with the purpose of repenting and other serious sins can render us unworthy to partake of the sacrament and if we hold the priesthood to administer the sacraments, if we do so it is to our damnation.
“40Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.
41But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.” D&C 84:40-41
So yes you are correct that once ordained always ordained and the sacraments that they have previously performed are still valid. However, if they are no longer worthy to perform the sacraments then any sacraments they do perform are towards their condemnation, while as long as the people receiving the sacrament are unaware of their unworthiness, still valid to those receiving them. If the congregation sustains a person who has authority but is unworthy to retain that authority then they are in sin, if the person that has authority over the priest knows he is unworthy and does not remove him from service then that person is in sin.
Similar rules existed for the Levites and Priests as continue to exist today.
I am under the assumption that you don’t want me to actually answer where we were when the foundations of the earth were laid, how Christ is not condoning wickedness but condemning hypocrisy, and other such topics from the scriptures you have quoted.
Here’s some information on priests in mortal sin:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur68.htm
Additionally, priests can never lose their priesthood (Ps 110:4) but they can be banned from administering the sacraments temporarily or permanently. Recently, this has happened most notably to many priests involved in the sexual abuse crisis.
Thank you for the very informative response, lotdw, you, at least, have always answered truthfully and sincerely, thank you for that.
The differences do not seem nearly as great based on that document then what I was understanding of it. The major difference based on that document is that it would appear less likely to get punished when one is in a position of higher authority in the Catholic Church as opposed to the LDS Church. Also the penalty doesn’t appear to be excommunication which, depending on the sin for the LDS, it can be. The priesthood doesn’t get removed in such an excommunication but the person is required to repent and be re-baptized before they can participate at church or use their priesthood.
Doesn’t it create more of a scandal if a priest doesn’t step down and then the sin is discovered?
We also don’t care what is used for the sacrament and do not currently use wine. The general sentiment about not changing the saving ordinances is similar. There is much less ritual and non-saving ordinances have almost no set form while the saving ordinances have a set form that any deviation from renders the ordinance invalid. Temple ordinances are of another nature altogether.
How does one baptize by immersion and not get the head wet? When a Baptist or Greek Orthodox or most Evangelical wants to come into communion with the Catholic Church would they be required to be re-baptized as the form of Baptism is immersion or what is it referring to there?
Good question. I’ve never heard of any form of baptism that didn’t wet the head; perhaps the author of the article was simply imagining a conceivable situation but not thinking of any real-life examples.
Baptism by immersion with the Trinitarian formula (In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) with the intention to to baptize is considered valid baptism. Indeed, baptism by immersion is coming back into vogue in the Catholic Church, at least in some parishes. Baptist and other Evangelical baptisms are considered valid. You are probably aware that Mormon baptisms are not, but that is only because Mormon theology is not trinitarian.
Thanks, I try. I have a lot of friends who are not Catholic whom I nevertheless love and respect highly, so I try to be judicious when discussing and explaining religious differences (and am used to doing it). I have also been on the receiving end of many lies or slanted diatribes myself, mostly from atheists, so I try to avoid biasing my own responses.
Official excommunication has shifted more and more to specific broken canonical laws – for example, teaching evil as opposed to doing evil. This seems weird to outsiders, but I think it does make some sense – official excommunication is more about Church officials correctly teaching or administering sacramentally. Of course, any Catholic, priest or no, who commits a mortal sin is excommunicated in the sense that he cannot take Communion until he makes a confession, however.
Almost certainly. The real scandal when it came to the abuse crisis was not the abuse itself; it was the cover-up.
The problem is that one does have to admit of certain exceptions whenever it comes to questions of justice vs. mercy, and it may be more merciful for a priest or person in general not to be publicly called out, and better for that person’s spiritual progress. I am personally of the opinion that more public scrutiny would be better all around, however (though I know were I myself in the sights, as priests or pro-choice politicians are, I might disagree).
My guess is that he was using that example for purposes of explanation – the point being that for each sacrament there are certain elements which are negotiable and certain elements which are not. This has obvious relevance to the question of which other churches’ sacraments have validity within the Catholic church. It’s all very scholastic.
“I am under the assumption that you don’t want me to actually answer where we were when the foundations of the earth were laid, how Christ is not condoning wickedness but condemning hypocrisy, and other such topics from the scriptures you have quoted.”
Precisely, and you hit here on my exact point — that simply throwing Scriptural quotes back and forth at one another, without both having a full understanding of the entire context (which for me includes the Catechism and Sacred Tradition as well as the Bible itself) of all of them, is unproductive at best and disruptive at worst.
With regard to the rest of your post, can I ask exactly what you, or the Mormon tradition, mean in a theological sense by the terms “worthy” and “unworthy”? In Catholicism the term “state of mortal sin” has a very specific and clear meaning relating to the state of the soul following the commission of explicitly defined individual sins, which in turn defines the actions needed to regain Grace after losing it. In and of themselves those states do not prescribe what is the most just, merciful and practical thing to do about a priest struggling with sinfulness; that depends on his circumstances, temptations and actions.
Do “worthy” and “unworthy” have analogous specific meanings in Mormonism? If not, how are they to be understood? Are they terms of subjective or objective evaluation? How are those in authority expected to verify worthiness or unworthiness?
Here:
Also
Which is from the Baptism question, it would be covered by 14 and 15 in the temple questions.
Holders of the Aaronic, or lesser, priesthood are interviewed twice a year. Such holders are generally teenagers twelve-eighteen, new members that have been a member for less then a year, or members that have never lived worthily to receive the Melchizedek priesthood. Melchizedek priesthood that are not married are interviewed yearly, those married are interviewed once every two years. The interviewer is the Bishop or member of the Bishopric (i.e. there are two counselors). They are common judges in Israel and have been given the gift of discernment for such purposes.
However, if we ourselves know we are not worthy it is also our responsibility to confess such to the Bishop.
If the Bishop finds that a serious sin that requires a Church action has been committed (such sins are specific but also depend on which covenants we have made (e.g. if and which priesthood we hold, have we been to the temple, have we been sealed (married) in the temple) then a disciplinary council is convened. There are very specific procedures on such found in the Doctrine and Covenants with other guidelines in Church material that is for that purpose. The disciplinary council then takes into account both objective and subjective things in deciding the appropriate action.
If the Bible is to be had as any sort of authority then it does absolutely no good to throw quotes back and forth as that makes it appear as though the authority is contradicting itself. Generally though that is how most such debates happen. So if I thought that you were actually objecting to what I said with those quotes then I would have to go through those quotes and point out how they in no way counter what I said. Just as, were you to actually be objecting to what I said, you should really be going through the quotes I gave and pointing out the error in understanding them.
I appreciate your taking the time to answer these questions; I find the answers fascinating as I know very little about the Church of the LDS. That said, I will impose further on your patience with a few more inquiries:
- What is a “testimony” as used in Questions #1-#3? Is it a personal revelation, an objective supernatural experience, or simply a public avowal of the belief to the community?
- What does “restoration of the gospel” in question #3 mean? Is this a literal event expected to occur, or a state of society the LDS seeks to bring about?
- In Question #4, what exactly are the “priesthood keys”?
- In Question #11, what is meant by “the Word of Wisdom,” and how does one live by it?
- Is Question #15 one of those questions you’re expected to answer “no” to, even if the rest of the questions have been honestly and satisfactorily answered? — i.e., thinking yourself worthy is one of the strongest indicators you probably aren’t? (In the Mass, we say, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You” just before taking Communion, even if we are in a state of Grace — in fact we’re supposed to be in a state of Grace before we *can* take communion.)
Feel free to say, “This takes more time and energy to properly answer than I have, try Wikipedia first,” if you like.
If one does not feel worthy to enter the temple then one should not enter the temple as that is in many cases the Spirit letting you know that you need to correct something in your life, or even meaning you lack the Spirit altogether due to some transgression. With baptism we are cleansed of all sins and with the gift of the Holy Spirit we are sanctified being brought again into the presence of a member of the God-head (Trinity for you, there are huge differences in what is meant by that though) and thus in part redeemed from the fall. As if we live worthy of it the Spirit then it will be our constant companion. Hence question 15.
Question 11
The Word of Wisdom is found in section 89 of the D&C. It prohibits the use of Tea, Coffee, Alcohol, Tobacco, and other illegal drugs. It also suggests the eating of meat sparingly, eating of fruit in the season, and the eating of grains. The promise attached with it is that of health and that of wisdom and knowledge, meaning if you live it you will be healthier and you will be more in tune with the Spirit. Generally people consider themselves to be living it if they avoid the prohibitions, although there is the other part of it.
Question 4
This one is more complecated so I will use quotes from an Apostle:
from: http://lds.org/ensign/2005/10/keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng
I would have thought some part of this concept would have made sense as the Catholics claim to hold the keys of the Priesthood through Peter.
Question 3
It is an event that has already occurred, see the answer for 4. We believe that with the death of the Apostles that Christ’s true church was taken from the Earth by reason of general apostasy of the Church at that time. The Gospel was restored to the earth for the last time in preparation for Christs Second Coming by way of the the Prophet Joseph Smith. Isaiah 2:1–3; 29:13–14; Acts 3:19–21; Revelation 14:6–7 are some of the scriptures in the bible that foretell of this occurrence.
Questions 1-3
Is it a personal revelation, an objective supernatural experience: yes, A testimony is a spiritual witness by the Holy Ghost of knowledge. Having once received that witness it is up to us to maintain that knowledge, hence the question.
I was more explaining what I saw as being said rather than what the writer was trying to say. Also, StephenJ was the first on the thread to make the claim. I asked you about it because I generally misunderstand you less.
Speaking as a Mormon fan of this site, I will say that while some Catholic authorities have striven to suppress the common man, others have striven to liberate them. As with any group encompassing millions of people, some are evil and some are good. A state which, sadly, applies to Mormons as much as Catholics, though in both cases I believe we lean more towards the good.
Even as a Mormon we believe in teaching new people the milk of the gospel, not the meat. Look at how we are portrayed by our enemies – they seek out doctrines that require at least some background to understand and then mock us for believing it. Remember Huckabee saying that Mormons think Christ and Satan are brothers? Technically, this is true, because we believe Christ to be God’s only begotten son. And we believe that the angels before the Earth was made were God’s lesser children. But it doesn’t mean that we think that Christ and the Devil are equals or even comparable. Christ is my Savior, and has been such since the foundation of the world. Satan is the Accuser, my enemy from before I was born. Huckabee used his (technically truthful) statement to falsely portray the true Mormon belief.
In the same way, enemies of Catholicism will point out the obvious fact that some Catholic leaders have been wicked children of Hell. But they don’t mention that Catholics themselves agree. Catholics hate Alexander VI and Johann Tetzel as much as any Protestant – probably more.
Also speaking as a Mormon, a faith which was at one time harshly repressed by the government, I fear and hate any tendencies to equate government with religion. The only thing that kept ancient India from being a pure theocracy was that a largely Hindu population was conquered by a Muslim aristocracy in the 1500s. So the Hindus were of a different religion and had to be treated as such.