AHC: Sweden becomes beacon for religious liberty starting in 1100s?

Honestly the Pagans was mostly left alone (if they didn't go out of the way to piss off the Church) and slowly converted, I honestly find it more interesting if Sweden open itself to Jewish settlement, we could very well see a Jewish population similar size in percentage to Jewish population in Poland-Lithuania. It would completely change Sweden.
 
. . . In the 1100s the Church was still a very powerful force . . .
But not the worse of times, which arguably was “The Burning Time” from around the 1400s to 1600s largely focused on Central Europe but of course elsewhere as well, when lots of women were killed after being accused of being a witch.

Often it could be an independent-minded woman, a woman who was smarter than average, a widowed woman who controlled property, perhaps a woman who was on the Aspergers-Autism Spectrum, and probably at least a dozen other reasons as well. And of course the whole thing played off various stereotypes and had a large component which was simply anti-woman. Tragic, stupid, unbelievable, very human in seeking an ‘other’ to attribute negative traits to, at times maybe easily avoidable with just a little bit of positive leadership, other times maybe not. The Salem Witch Trials were a small example and relatively late in the period. All the same, would have been nice for the good guys to win earlier in Salem.
 
Last edited:
But not the worse of times, which arguably was “The Burning Time” from around the 1400s to 1600s largely focused on Central Europe but of course elsewhere as well, when lots of women were killed after being accused of being a witch.
Witch trials seem to me not like a sign of ecclestical strenght but of weakness. Note that witch trials peaked when the established religious order north of tge Alps collapsed.

By the way when @Legofan4 wrote "the church" he meant the Roman Catholic Church, which in fact realized pretty quickly (thanks to the Inquisition conducting an inquisition) that witch trials were mostly illegal bullshit. The Inquisition actually was a substantial step away from what you called "barbarism".
 
But not the worse of times, which arguably was “The Burning Time” from around the 1400s to 1600s largely focused on Central Europe but of course elsewhere as well, when lots of women were killed after being accused of being a witch.

Often it could be an independent-minded woman, a woman who was smarter than average, a widowed woman who controlled property, perhaps a woman who was on the Aspergers-Autism Spectrum, and probably at least a dozen other reasons as well. And of course the whole thing played off various stereotypes and had a large component which was simply anti-woman. Tragic, stupid, unbelievable, very human in seeking an ‘other’ to attribute negative traits to, at times maybe easily avoidable with just a little bit of positive leadership, other times maybe not. The Salem Witch Trials were a small example and relatively late in the period. All the same, would have been nice for the good guys to win earlier in Salem.

The witch trials were not Church-conducted. It was the lay jurisdiction, even in Catholic countries, which was active in these trials. It seems quite ASB to me to create the conditions for religious acceptance in Early Modern Europe. Even in countries with written rules of religious coexistence, like France or the United Provinces, "toleration" was seen as a necessary evil, not a goal in a project of society.
 
@Pischinovski : If the Inquisition was a step away from "barbarism", that might only be because it operated under a relatively formal set of rules and procedures. The whole underlying concept of the Inquisition was that "heresy" was an evil that literally needed to be burned out root and branch and particularly the persecution of those whose adherence to forced conversion (itself barbaric) was deemed suspect or those, such as Cathars, whose theology differed from that of Rome. While it was the civil authorities who were legally executing the victims, the Church was there to bless the proceedings, and note they were called auto da fe, not "executions". It was the Inquisition that used torture to obtain confessions (yes, not ones that "spilled blood" but horrendous enough), and it was the Church that would make the decision even at the stake that the guilty and become penitent at the last moment and be strangled before being burnt. Of course lesser punishments from more conventional penitence through imprisonment (up to life), banishment, and confiscation of goods were used as well and executions only represented a minority of punishments, although the threat was always there.

The Inquisition continued in to the 19th century, and when the Spanish took over the French territory of Louisiana (1762-1802) the rules of the Inquisition applied there and one of the laws was that anyone who defamed the Virgin Mary was to have their tongue torn out. By any definition this sort of thing is barbarism, it certainly was not exclusive to the Church either from a religious standpoint or a more general societal standpoint, but barbarism it was. The Inquisition, in various forms, lasted from the 12th century until the middle of 19th, in Spain the last execution was in the mid-1820s (garroting of a teacher whose "crime" was teaching Deism). It was the papal States in Italy that were the last to end the Inquisition.

The Inquisition is merely one example of how Divine Authority can be used to justify barbaric behavior, especially that which is contrary to the more general teachings and morality of a religion. This extends fro human sacrifice of all sorts up to the barbarism of various extreme Islamic groups today and is not particular to the Church or any one religion. The point is that barbarism is barbarism, best to admit history, learn from it, and move on - whitewashing dos no good.
 
@Pischinovski : If the Inquisition was a step away from "barbarism", that might only be because it operated under a relatively formal set of rules and procedures. The whole underlying concept of the Inquisition was that "heresy" was an evil that literally needed to be burned out root and branch and particularly the persecution of those whose adherence to forced conversion (itself barbaric) was deemed suspect or those, such as Cathars, whose theology differed from that of Rome. While it was the civil authorities who were legally executing the victims, the Church was there to bless the proceedings, and note they were called auto da fe, not "executions". It was the Inquisition that used torture to obtain confessions (yes, not ones that "spilled blood" but horrendous enough), and it was the Church that would make the decision even at the stake that the guilty and become penitent at the last moment and be strangled before being burnt. Of course lesser punishments from more conventional penitence through imprisonment (up to life), banishment, and confiscation of goods were used as well and executions only represented a minority of punishments, although the threat was always there.

The Inquisition continued in to the 19th century, and when the Spanish took over the French territory of Louisiana (1762-1802) the rules of the Inquisition applied there and one of the laws was that anyone who defamed the Virgin Mary was to have their tongue torn out. By any definition this sort of thing is barbarism, it certainly was not exclusive to the Church either from a religious standpoint or a more general societal standpoint, but barbarism it was. The Inquisition, in various forms, lasted from the 12th century until the middle of 19th, in Spain the last execution was in the mid-1820s (garroting of a teacher whose "crime" was teaching Deism). It was the papal States in Italy that were the last to end the Inquisition.

The Inquisition is merely one example of how Divine Authority can be used to justify barbaric behavior, especially that which is contrary to the more general teachings and morality of a religion. This extends fro human sacrifice of all sorts up to the barbarism of various extreme Islamic groups today and is not particular to the Church or any one religion. The point is that barbarism is barbarism, best to admit history, learn from it, and move on - whitewashing dos no good.

You seem to confuse the medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition and the early modern civil courts enforcing religious rules. Sure, admitting history is good, but you need to know it first.
 
While there were some significant differences between the medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, and later civil enforcement of religious rules, an inquisitorial regime under Church auspices was in effect from the 12th century until the Papal States ended it in the mid-1800s. The Inquisition in Spain was not quite the same as the Inquisition in Spanish America or Louisiana, and similar but different from the Inquisition in Portugal. Like any institution the Inquisition evolved over time and space. However the ESSENTIALS of the Inquisition remained the same, that is rigorous searching out of heresy and heretics by ecclesiastical authorities using rather extreme measures to secure confessions and the use of onerous penalties up to and including death by the civil authorities on the basis of Church court findings. The heretics/heresy under scrutiny by the Church might be Cathars, Hussites, Marranos, Moriscos, or defamers of the Virgin Mary, or Deists depending on the time and place, but the underpinnings or logic of the Inquisition remained the same.

As I pointed out, whenever Divine Authority or an exclusive revelation is used as justification for action, there are no limits. If the divine mandates infants thrown in to the furnace, those not of your religion second class citizens at best or slaves or worse, or strict obedience to all aspects of approved doctrine on the pain of torture and immolation, barbarism is at best a mild comment. To the true believer, an order seen as divine has no limits...Deus Veult.
 
. . . It seems quite ASB to me to create the conditions for religious acceptance in Early Modern Europe. Even in countries with written rules of religious coexistence, like France or the United Provinces, "toleration" was seen as a necessary evil, not a goal in a project of society.
At times it seems ASB to me, too, but it’s such an obviously good idea! And I don’t mean merely idealistic terms, I mean in terms of very practical benefits to the country.
 
And legal reform seems like a good way to indirectly achieve much of this. Basically, the idea that we’re going to no longer roll with rumor and the assumption of guilt.

And the oath to tell the truth, only the truth, and the full truth could be poetic and general: “I swear by Nature’s God, by my country Sweden, and by my neighbors and fellow citizens . . . ” And just maybe, judges could be allowed, perhaps even be encouraged, to suggest and allow a substitute for the sake of individual conscience. (maybe that last part is hoping too much, maybe not :))
 
When we think about Sweden becoming a beacon for religous liberty in the middle ages. How does Swede become a beacon for religous freedom? What does religous freedom entail? Were there any societies in the middle ages known for being beacons of religous tolerance? If so what were these societies characterised by?
 
The reality was that during the Middle Ages nothing in the west was a "beacon of religious liberty". Depending where you were either the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, or Islam ran the show. Anywhere and everywhere those in minority status or "alternate confessions" (think Cathars for example) were either in positions of severe limitations (such as those for Jews and Christians in Caliphate lands), or persecuted until conversion or death (pagans in Islamic lands, "heretics" in Christian lands). Majority religions had some variation from place to place, and were not above co-opting local/pagan practices in to the new revelation. BTW by "west" I include the Middle East, Russian lands, Persia, Afghanistan, even parts of India.
 
Top