Why I was kicked (Protestantism/Christianity > other religions)

[Emperor Norton I]

 

[Yorel]

I'm going to be blunt, but this thread was a very bad idea on your part...

First thing is that you post in the pre-1900 discussion thread. While you say this is the only part of the forum you post in, it's still not the best place to post what you did post here... Because you're not talking about History in itself, you're discussing your personnal opinions on why you think you've been kicked and describing your personnal opinions. This is not the kind of thread you usually see in pre-1900: you generally see timelines, discussion about potential PODs and other similarities. Discussing opinions is more something that belongs in the Chat category, especially in the case of what you're talking about.

The second thing is that your defense is really clumsy. You attack the moderator's decisions in open field: that's not really the most reasonnable course of action. Instead, it already makes you look as someones who's overlydefensive about his opinions as well as a bit stubborn... Not really the best image to give around, especially if you're trying to get support.

The most problematic things however is your argumentation... It's really REALLY bad and clumsy.

Where I come from (France) religion has long become irrelevant (80% respond to polls that they do not believe in God, let alone attend Church) and you can say pretty much anything about religion without raising an eyebrow.

I'm curious at where your 80% poll result comes from... I'm French too but last I check, polls only have 1/3 of the French people openly acknowledging they don't believe in any religion and around 1/2 still identifying as Catholic. There seems to be a contradiction here...

And saying you can say pretty much anything about religion without raising an eyebrow is a bit oversimplifying it. We're probably more open discussing things than in many other places, but we still have our limits on what can be said.

Of course this is very different from Cold Civil War America where using the words "Christianity" or "Protestantism" automatically brands you a Trump supporter, with all the attendant assumptions.

This is probably your most clumsy line in your argumentation. It's incredibly conceited and reductive of Americans members of this board... Which is really not smart given that they probably make for a good chunk of the board members.

Also, being a Christian in America means you're a Trump supporter? Christian Americans of various denominations that are either Anti-Trump Republicans or Democrats will take that idea well...

I do not believe there is anything to "conserve". Civilization only moves forward and generally not under conscious human control. So for example "saving Western civilization" is certainly not something I believe in.

That is highly debatable statement. And a very politically charged one at that.

It also assumes that absolutely no AH.com member is a conservative. And that's not even before mentionning how large a denomination Conservative is...

The whole point of the TL I published here (which is stalled for the moment) was to explore a scenario in which Christianity spreads East instead of West and therefore produces the same effects in China/Japan that Europe experienced IOTL (Industrial revolution, etc).

Then there is this... So Christiannity led to the Industrial Revolution? Nice theory... But how do you back that up? Weren't there other factors at play? If you ask me, there were a ton of other factors at play other than religion...

Hell, this forum has regularly had debates on whether or not Christiannity contributed to the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire and I'm among those who argue that the Empire already has its fair share of problems by the time Christiannity became legal...

Because I do believe that Christianity was superior to other religion in terms of its societal effects. Does that make me a racist or bigot? I do not believe so. The judgment I am making about Christianity, I do in the same spirit as a biologist would say that mammals are superior to reptiles. To me, Christianity is a natural artefact, a product of natural evolution, like the rest of human culture. The point I am making is that Christianity seems to have displayed better evolutionary fitness compared to other religions and I am trying to explain what I mean by that (please refer to my various posts for more details).

I'm not sure a biologist would say that mammals are superior to reptiles... Or at least, not in a general sense. Mammals probably have a lot of biological advantages compared to Reptiles but Reptilles themselves are also probably better at doing certain things than mammals are.

This is also what makes you argumentation fall apart. History doesn't really work like Biology for one. And then, there is A LOT that can be debated here in regards to Christiannity's ability to evolve and its societal effects.

If one takes the long view (this is why I always publish in the "pre-1900" section), it becomes pretty obvious that Christianity is not a European religion. Its roots are firmly in the Middle-East (especially in Mesopotamian culture) and most of its key developments took place in Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (modern Turkey) between 100 AD and 600 AD. For most of this period, Europe was a poor, cold, violent backwater which played little part in religious or cultural evolution. What happened later on is that, no one being a prophet in his own country, Christianity was wiped out from the Middle-East and eventually bore fruit, in its protestant incarnation, in far away Europe; the unlikeliest of places.

This is really an oversimplification of the problem... And probably something that would be considered wrong by many members here. Europe a cold violent backwater between 100 AD and 600 AD for example... When Rome only fell in 476 and its Empire was considered one of the greatest and most advanced in the world at the time.

Again, I am making no metaphysical claim here. I am just saying that Christianity was a mental discipline, like Yoga or Buddhism, and that it has very strong effects, both psychological and social. My claim is that what we call "modernity" is the result of these effects.

The problem is that this is a highly debatable claim.

The problem with this particular issue is that I believe protestants are right. I do not agree with them on their fundamental metaphysical claims (existence of God, salvation, etc). But I do believe that they are right in calling Catholicism "pagan" or, as I do here "semi-pagan".

Let me explain. Catholicism was formed during late antiquity when Christianity had gained the political support of the Empire but Christians were still a minority in a sea of pagans (I use this term as a shorthand although I know it is not fully satisfactory of course). There is ample evidence in the Church Fathers and from archeology that the Church sought to avoid conflict withy the majority by adopting a large number of pagan practices, cult locations, vocabulary. It is clear, for example, that the cult of the Virgin Mary and of Saint George, for example have clear pagan antecedents (Magna Mater/Isis, Marduk). While the wisdom of these compromises can be discussed ad infinitum, there is little doubt that they are compromises between strict monotheism (which is theoretically Christianity's position) and pagan influences. So when Protestants attacked the Church hierarchy during the reform by calling them "pagans", they obviously had a point. It is hard to deny it.

Am I not allowed to say that ?

I know it will offend Catholics but it is a point which is very important to my overall argument. How am I to make a convincing case if I distance myself from one of the key issues?

And... Here we have a bit of confusion on why specifically Christiannity evolved the way it did... As well as a very-narrow minded pro-Protestant view.

Saying the Church adopted a number of pagan practices for one is a bit... exagerrated. All the Church did was basically set its religious feasts on the same days as pagan feasts to be able to better compete with paganism of any kind. As for re-using Pagan Temples and converting them into Churches... It's only switching the building's use. And it's not completely limited to Christiannity: plenty of other religions have destroyed previous temples to build their own on them... Hell, this still happened at later points in time: the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople used to be a Church before the Ottomans made it a mosque. And in Spain, in Cordoba if I'm right, you had a mosque that was turned into a Church after the Reconquista... Yet I don't see people claiming Christiannity adopted Islamic practices...

In other words, you argument is at best hotly debatable and at worst completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Minchandre]

I do not believe I will get a fair hearing. I prefer the court of public opinion. I understand very well that it will not endear me to the moderators. But at least I will get their attention. Otherwise, do you think they will read with all the care required a longish message in which I explain my position?

Honestly, they would have been about 1000x more likely to read a longish message in which you explained your position than with you, and I cannot believe you actually said this, trying to get a hearing in the court of public opinion.

You understand that you aren't a revolutionary standing up for greater freedoms in an authoritarian country, right? You're a dude that said some things the owners of a private website disagreed with. And considering the fairly strict moderation style here, it's not like the moderators are going to change their minds because of the thousands protesting in your name in the square in front of Ian's house. I mean, also there aren't going to be those thousands. But even if there were. The mere idea of "a fair hearing" is orthogonal to the matter at hand.

If you'd written a longish personal message to CalBear and/or Ian and managed to keep an even tone, you may well have gotten a response. This thread is probably a guarantee of a ban.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

Because I do believe that Christianity was superior to other religion in terms of its societal effects. Does that make me a racist or bigot?

You answered your own question. Yes, it does.

Why? Because there is next to no proof of such. It's on the level of the anti-voxx argument.

 

[fi11222]

Hi everyone. I am going to stop answering the posts in this thread.

Obviously, some agree with me (I got some likes), some disagree and many are in the middle. I think that this is enough of a demonstration that this is a valide debate. The fact that some are more vocal than others does not make them more right. Unless otherwise specified by the moderation, I will take it that this means that I have sufficiently clarified my position and will reference this thread in future as a way to avoid any further misunderstanding about this subject.

 

[Basileus444]

Then, what I do say is that one religion, Protestantism, was superior to other religions in terms of its societal effects. This is like saying that you will get bonus points in a certain area if you choose a certain religion in Civilization VI. I do not think this is a particularly new or outlandish idea.

Now I disagree with this statement, but I think you have the right to say it. It is a controversial opinion certainly, but that's absolutely no reason by itself to disbar it. Now if you're going around saying all Catholics are dumb, that's a different story, but that is because you would then be making personal attacks.

Now I agree that bigotry should have no place here, but religion does not equal race. Religions are human constructs, and I see no reason why one couldn't debate that Religion X has more beneficial social impacts than Religion Y. After all nobody would bat an eye if one debated that Political System X had more beneficial social impacts than Political System Y.

I wouldn't get too worked up about being called a troll if I were you. Sometimes the term troll seems to be used to define 'person who has unpopular opinion and has the temerity to defend it'.

You probably got kicked for identifying correlation as fact without supplying concrete evidence of causation. It doesn't look like this has changed.

So making an argument without sufficient evidence is a kick-level offense? If so, the mods should be handing out a lot more kicks than they do.

I have a simple question. Do you like this forum? If the answer is yes, obey the rules, even if you disagree with them. If you get kicked multiple times for something, stop doing it or you will get banned. It realy doesn't matter how right you are, or how right you think you are. If you like this forum, obey its rules and the rules of the moderators.

So basically you're saying either get out or accept the status quo. Now this is the online equivalent of a private club so one should follow the rules, but that shouldn't mean one isn't allowed to debate, question, or try and change them.


And for all of those saying that this thread is going to get the OP banned, why? Is questioning moderator actions a ban-level offense now?

 

[Pischinovski]

Christianity spreads East instead of West and therefore produces the same effects in China/Japan that Europe experienced IOTL (Industrial revolution, etc).

You maybe should cite some sources on why you believe Christianity to be inheritatly superior to every other religion. Most of your argument just makes it sound like some bullshit right out of "The Golden Bough" and similar extremly eurocentric/anglocentric publications that what you to believe that there is some kind of natural determenistic evolutionary path for every religion that leads from animism to rational enlightend protestantism.

About the bit about "semi-pagan" Catholicism: Islam wants to talk with you about why there are so many St. Nicholas, St. Thomas, St. Peters, St. George, St. Martin (and so on) churches in protestant countries ... oh yeah and the Holy Trinity.

 

[fi11222]

Let me be clear. I am not saying, of course, that I refuse to discuss the heart of the matter, just that I do not think it is a good idea to discuss it here.

I have launched this thread because I wish to have an answer, a public answer if possible, from the moderation about how to discuss this topic. In particular, I wish to know whether it will be possible to discuss it provided sufficient precautions are taken to avoid misunderstanding (like I did in the OP or maybe otherwise) or whether the level of tension will make it impossible to discuss it at all, regardless of precautions and disclaimers.

I do not plan to start a new thread specifically to discuss the topic of whether protestantism is superior to other religions. It would be provocative and then the "trolling" label would apply. My concern is more with my TL, The Scorpion Bite. Eventually, I will restart it, hopefully, and the subject of what Christianity/protestantism means in term of societal evolution will inevitably crop up. To be clear, I would like to know if it is worth restarting this thread here or whether I should take it elsewhere.

 

[fi11222]

You answered your own question. Yes, it does.

Why? Because there is next to no proof of such. It's on the level of the anti-voxx argument.

Reported. You cannot make a claim that someone is racist if he explicitly does not make any claim about race. If you do then it is defamation and I believe it is legally actionable.

Again I have said that Christianity is a non-European religion which would have produced pretty much the same results anywhere (e.g. in China/Japan). Where is the Racialist/Eurocentric element in this statement?

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

I do not plan to start a new thread specifically to discuss the topic of whether protestantism is superior to other religions. It would be provocative and then the "trolling" label would apply. My concern is more with my TL, The Scorpion Bite. Eventually, I will restart it, hopefully, and the subject of what Christianity/protestantism means in term of societal evolution will inevitably crop up. To be clear, I would like to know if it is worth restarting this thread here or whether I should take it elsewhere.

I mean if you had a TL where Christianity expanded to a non-Christian region, and that region ITTL has a Renaissance-like movement, I doubt anyone would take offense. Nor would anyone take offense if in the same TL, a Protestant like movement encouraged a larger percentage of the population in said region to learn to personally read the Bible, causing the printing press to take off and increasing literacy.

There's a difference between a fictional portrayal showing a parallel in the development of the Christian world, and saying outright "Christianity is superior to other religions"

In the first case, the TL of a hypothetical scenario, you're saying "Protestantism is an influence that can lead to this good thing.". In the latter case, the recent arguments, you're saying "Only Protestantism can lead to this good thing"

 

[desmirelle]

Wrong damn forum. You are posting about why YOU shouldn't be kicked and I'd bet all my Monopoly money you weren't born before 1900. Perhaps you're being kicked for failure to comprehend and follow the rules?

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

Reported. You cannot make a claim that someone is racist if he explicitly does not make any claim about race. If you do then it is defamation and I believe it is legally actionable.

You said "racist or bigot", and given that bigot is not exclusively based on racism, my statement was entirely justifiable.

Again I have said that Christianity is a non-European religion which would have produced pretty much the same results anywhere (e.g. in China/Japan). Where is the Racialist/Eurocentric element in this statement?

Never mind your incoherent logic there, show how Christianity was a driving force for development. I'll wait.

Oh yes, you just contradicted yourself, since East Asia is one of the greatest examples of how Christianity had nothing to do with development. In fact, it was a detriment in the case of DPRK, where Christian-based myth-making established a de facto theocracy of the Cult of Kim Il Sung.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

I don't think your belief is banworthy, but you should realize that Protestant exceptionalism is not a widely followed hypothesis in modern academia and you should realize that any TL based on such idea will be intensely controversial by default, simply because the main tenet of the TL is not widely accepted as fact.

It would be as if I made a TL about India with the POD being that Muslims never invade the subcontinent and then have India undergo industrialization simply because there were no Muslim rulers there. It would be (justifiably) awfully controversial because it's based on the inaccurate conception that Islam was what made India "lose" to the West.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

I don't think your belief is banworthy, but you should realize that Protestant exceptionalism is not a widely followed hypothesis in modern academia and you should realize that any TL based on such idea will be intensely controversial by default, simply because the main tenet of the TL is not widely accepted as fact.

It would be as if I made a TL about India with the POD being that Muslims never invade the subcontinent and then have India undergo industrialization simply because there were no Muslim rulers there. It would be (justifiably) awfully controversial because it's based on the inaccurate conception that Islam was what made India "lose" to the West.

You should read what actually got him kicked:

One word: Protestantism, i.e. "real" Christianity (as opposed to semi-pagan Catholicism).

Basically, the ethos of protestantism is that the whole society becomes one giant monastery. That is why there are no more monks in protestantism. Everybody is a monk.

It is like in the Middle-Ages, when the monasteries were always the most prosperous economic actors; if you apply the monastic principles to a whole nation, then prosperity and innovation on a national scale will inevitably ensue. Examining the psycho-religious reasons why this is the case is an enormous (and enormously contentious) debate. Max Weber said all this long ago and there are even more evidence today to believe he was right.

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, except by heritage.

That was a classic case of religious bigotry.

 

[fi11222]

You said "racist or bigot", and given that bigot is not exclusively based on racism, my statement was entirely justifiable.

I cannot be a bigot since I am not Christian. You can only be a bigot about something you belong to.

I say "Christianity was superior to other religions" and then "I do not believe in Christianity; Christianity is dead". Have you ever heard a bigot talk like that? Again, this is defamation.

 

[fi11222]

I don't think your belief is banworthy, but you should realize that Protestant exceptionalism is not a widely followed hypothesis in modern academia and you should realize that any TL based on such idea will be intensely controversial by default, simply because the main tenet of the TL is not widely accepted as fact.

I am well aware of that. But isn't one allowed to hold and defend minority opinions ?

And if it is controversial then, hopefully, it can be constructively so. Controversy forces everyone to sharpen their arguments and everyone ends up better off, provided debaters keep honest.

 

[Revachah]

I cannot be a bigot since I am not Christian. You can only be a bigot about something you belong to.

I say "Christianity was superior to other religion" and then "I do not believe in Christianity; Christianity is dead". Have you ever heard a bigot talk like that. Again, this is defamation.

There are those who see Christianity as a cultural hallmark that can be the template for secularist thought, practices and processes.

Just because you don't believe in Jesus does not mean you do not believe the things that sprang from Christianity is superior to anything else on this planet.

In fact I see this thought often in Secular far right European talks.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

I cannot be a bigot since I am not Christian. You can only be a bigot about something you belong to.

I say "Christianity was superior to other religion" and then "I do not believe in Christianity; Christianity is dead". Have you ever heard a bigot talk like that. Again, this is defamation.

Sure sure, you're just contradicting yourself to save face. Your posts in the past already proved who you really are.

Nice try though.

 

[fi11222]

There are those who see Christianity as a cultural hallmark that can be the template for secularist thought, practices and processes.

Just because you don't believe in Jesus does not mean you do not believe the things that sprang from Christianity is superior to anything else on this planet.

In fact I see this thought often in Secular far right European talks.

In that case, I would be making some sort of Racialist/Ethnocentric/Eurocentric argument. And I am not.

Again I have said that Christianity is a non-European religion (a Middle-Eastern one) which would have produced pretty much the same results anywhere (e.g. in China/Japan). Can you imagine a far-right advocate saying such a thing? In my TL, Europe will end-up as an insignificant backwater populated by uncouth rustics. Do you imagine such a scenario in a far right European context?

 

[fi11222]

Sure sure, you're just contradicting yourself to save face.

Where is the contradiction? Saying that something was good but is now dead?

Your posts in the past already proved who you really are.

That is bigotry. Inquisition, Stalin's Show trials, ... The sentence above would be right at home.