Talk:Anti-clericalism/Archives/2009/January

Context

That this article focuses so heavily on anti-clericalism as religious persecution is a misrepresentation of the historic phenomenon.

The article mentions opposition to church power, real or alleged, but gives no context for what that means, what power the church had. For example it is significant to know, concerning land seizure, that the First Estate in France owned ten to fifteen percent of all land (via Wikipedia article Estates of the Realm, ultimately from http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture11a.html) That it goes beyond secularism is true by and large, but it also includes measures such as taxing religious institutions, ending the authority of canon law courts, abolishing mandatory tithes, and opposing church censorship.

It is also significant to note that the First Estate voted with the Second against the Third in the days leading up to the revolution, and since the estates voted by head, this assured the Third Estate, representing 96% of the populace (again from Estates of the Realm, this time http://www.ackland.org/art/exhibitions/reasonfantasy/ltwa3.htm), would be underrepresented in the Estates-General, directly leading to the establishment of the National Assembly, the first act of revolution. It’s not the place of a historian to define ‘bad guys’ and ‘good guys’, but violence against the church was caused by the political elite forcing the Third Estate to rely on the Paris mobs for political legitimacy as much as it was the caused by anti-clericalism among French intellectuals.

While opposition to church privilege in ancient regime France certainly contributed to the murder of priests during the terror, it is equally true that egalitarianism, that is, opposition to class privilege, contributed to the murder of aristocrats. While murderous purges can be a manifestation of anti-clericalism, they are not the sum of it. There are several current political parties listed in Wikipedia as being anti-clerical (currently), such as the Italian Radicals or the French Radical Party, but which I doubt support murder or violence.

There is only one sentence, in the introduction, which deals with the role it played in the Reformation, which ought to be covered. It’s worth noting that this does not sit well with other statements in the article claiming that anti-clericalism is irreligious in the West. Anti-clericalism isn’t necessarily opposition to religion, but rather opposition to the clergy, the church. Also, Jefferson, Paine, Robespierre and Voltaire were Deists, which complicates the whole religion/irreligion dichotomy.

Much relevant information not yet in the article can be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica article already cited in the introduction. I’m telling you instead of doing it myself because a) I don’t have the technical knowledge to embed links and so forth, b) I don’t know what the rules for editing are, and, most importantly, c) I’m lazy and I don' wanna.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is itself a tertiary source and therefore does not quote from other tertiary sources such as another encyclopedia.

Like all revolutions, each may have started off well, but wound up murdering thousands of perfectly innocent priests and laypeople. Presumably the world has since learned how to redistribute land without murdering the previous (legal) landowners. The French has our revolution to base theirs on, but did not do very well with that example. The judiciary was poorly formed for example. Mob rule overtook the legislators. Not a pretty sight. So you are saying that since someone "provoked" the murders (of somebody else) the murders were justified? (Wasn't it Karl Marx that said something like that?)Student7 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Like I said, defining 'bad guys' is not good historical practice. My point was that anti-clericalism was a broad phenomenon, and attention shouldn't be focused so narrowly on the killings, which were only part of it. I'm not saying that the priests deserved it, but that violent anti-clericalism came about through a chain of events rather than being ideologically inherent in anti-clericalism.

Short history of the French Revolution (sorry if its a bit presumptuous to be explaining this to you). Louis XVI's government is insolvent. His ministers try to push economic reforms. The parlements, claiming to defend the rights of the French people, argue that any reforms must be passed through the Estates-General. The Estates-General is called, and there is much debate over how to organize it. The last time it was called each Estate had 300 seats, and they voted separately, so that a measure had to pass in at least two of the houses. The nobles, and the nobles among the clergy, supported this. In the Third Estate, with growing distrust of privilege and calls for popular sovereignty, they demanded 600 votes, and voting in a single assembly, which would give them half the votes, instead of one third. The king's minister pushed a compromise, that they have 600 seats but meet separately, so that they still only had one third of the vote. The nobles, and the clergy, narrowly, supported the compromise, and the Third Estate refused to meet as part of the Estates-General and formed the national assembly. While until this point the controversy had been of political and legal authority within the existing French system, this was the first real revolutionary act. The king tried to intimidate them by bringing forces outside Paris, but his own forces were unreliable, and the mobs reacted so as to force him to back down. The point is that the revolution's political leadership relied on the mob for its political authority. The commoners were denied adequate representation by the elite, which forced them to seek political power through revolution, which necessitated some form of military power. The Assembly was forced to rely on the mob, and power devolved to those who could best appeal to and inflame the mob, the Jacobins. That is the context in which violence happened (well, really, only part of it). The violent anti-clericalism that ensued was particular to that context, not inherent in the ideology.

My objection is that the article as is seems to suggest that anti-clericalism is the typically violent suppression of clergy conducted, in the West, by the irreligious, with little scope given to the nature of the church power they are trying to suppress or their motivations for doing so, and very little coverage of anti-clericalism apart from those times it descended into violence. The article shouldn't be so as to either represent anti-clericalism as, chiefly or solely, a form of violent discrimination, or as some sort of chiefly violent yet just retribution that "was justified." There's a lot of middle ground between those sentiments, where one could focus not on a laundry list of atrocities, but on the historical basis of a complicated ideology that pre-existed and post-dated Jacobin rule and like examples of violence, and that was broader than its most extreme enunciations even during those times.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what you are saying. A lot of this is retrospective as in all revolutions. When the mob started taking the axe to innocents priests, friars, etc. they could have cared less who they were axing or why. That is the problem with revolution gone out of control. But this is probably best described somewhere else.

The instigators definitely knew what they were doing and wanted to kill the clergy so they wouldn't come back later. Same reason for executing the king (and in a related event, the Reds executing the Tsar and his family). And Mao executing a million petty landlords when he took over China. But they knew what they were doing. It was still pretty bloodthirsty though. And at least royalty did have something to do with the original problem. By the time the killings reached the field, this wasn't the case. The clergy at the local level really didn't really have that much material or power to kill them for. In Graham Greene's fictional The Power and the Glory an impoverished alcoholic priest is hunted down and executed in Mexico. Kind of brought home the nature of the revolution to America back when.

It seems to me that when the topic is anti-Communism and Mccarthy-ism which was short-lived and where no one was killed, there is a lot of hand-wringing. But when the topic is anti-clericalism where people were actually killed, suddenly the guys doing the executing have a lot of support and rationalization for their behavior.

But I agree, executing people sure shuts them up for good! No more reasons for grievance out of any of them! Student7 (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The "nature of the revolution" was multifaceted and encompassed many issues (including popular sovereignty, universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery, things we take for granted today). Anyway, what I've been trying to argue is that anti-clericalism was broader than the actions of the Jacobins and the Paris crowds. If you mean the Jacobins by the instigators, then you're right, but if you mean anti-clerical intellectuals generally, no.

I don't want to "rationalize" the executions. I'm arguing that fear and paranoia had more to do with the turn to violence than the views of many of those opposed to the power of the clergy (that is, anti-clericalists). Anti-clericalism has a broader definition than simply the violence orchestrated by the Jacobins (and similar circumstances in Mexico and elsewhere. It instead covers all opposition to the institutional power of the clergy. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Voltaire were certainly anti-clerical. They are not covered adequately: Voltaire is the only once mentioned, in the introduction, and only that he criticized the clergy and that this led to the expulsion of the Jesuits. Catholic immigrants from Southern Italy to the United States were both extremely pious and anti-clerical. And, as I mentioned, in various Wikipedia articles current political parties are described as anti-clerical, which ought to be represented in this article. The many examples of anti-clericalism which do not particularly relate to purges in Communist countries led by elite cabals are a reason people tend to treat anti-clericalism differently than anti-communism. The context of anti-communism in the U.S. was that the anti-communists had the power, the communists, and, more often, only alleged communists did not. Some anti-clericalists in power, particularly radicals, ruled brutally, and in those cases it is a fair comparison. But, there were also others, particularly in times when the clergy was very much in power, who were not violent and who were persecuted by the church. This article focuses on anti-clericalism as persecution of the clergy, which is a narrow and unrepresentative definition. These events were significant, and were a strong strain in anti-clericalism, but they are only part of the story. An issue is that through much of history liberalism (in the broad, historical sense) tended to be tied to anti-Catholicism, and the Catholic Church tended to be illiberal. Legitimate criticism of anti-liberal, anti-democratic ideology combined seamlessly with outright bigotry. To treat either one without the other is to give a false view of both.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot of Deism/Deists in the early part of our republic. I think the context is "sort of" provided, as with any article, in the linking of various surrounding phenomena, French Revolution, for example. There are other articles that criticize clericalism, Criticism of the Catholic Church, for example. Maybe explicit comments could be brought there? This is more like the Holocaust IMO. Maybe there should be a separate article, "criticism of Jewish bankers" for example, but putting this into the Holocaust article would not IMO be a good idea. So the tone of the article is kind of implicit in the article title. Some other title might condone persecution as justificd or justifiable.

Having said this, nearly everything in history has been justified by someone. 9/11 seemed like a great idea to somebody! I haven't investigated but maybe there are two articles, "The 9/11 tragedy" and "the thinking behind 9/11"? How balanced should articles (and their titles) be? And they eventually get long enough to get forked anyway into articles that are less balanced perhaps. Hmmmm. Student7 (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating that anti-clericalism is specific to the persecution of the clergy. It wasn't. It was any opposition or distrust of the institutional power (sometimes supposed) of the clergy. It is regularly used in that sense academically, and in a number of Wikipedia articles. I don't understand your idea that criticism of clericalism is inappropriate for a page entitled anti-clericalism. I think that this content should be included is implicit in the title. And even in the case of persecution, I think opposing context is not very encyclopedic, and turns this page into a book of martyrs rather than a history. To give a view of the political and social situation that surrounded an event is not rationalizing atrocity, it is the correct way to approach a historical event. I am not a Holocaust or 9/11 apologist, and you don't need to agree 'with me' that murder is a good way to stifle dissent. I'm trying to make this article a complete and accurate picture of a broad, complex phenomenon.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC) This article does not go into the political contexts of the times anti-clericalism occurred. It does not go into political connotation of Catholicism at the time or the political activities at the time. That the Catholic Church had any power is scarcely mentioned beyond the definition at the top. If opposition to real or alleged power is the basic definition, doesn’t it make sense for some examination of that power, when it was real or alleged, might help in explaining the phenomenon? It seem like this page is being used as a “persecution of Catholics” page, which is a narrow and jaundiced view of anti-clericalism. I don’t know if at one point this article was giving a POV anti-Catholic, apologist spin, but there is no risk of that now, as it seems mostly devoted to the evils of opposition to the church (at least, according to the definition given in the heading). Whenever this negative tone is challenged, atrocities are brought up, and editors are accused of defending them. Any information about the church that could be seen as negative (or, alternatively, could be seen as shedding light on the conflict) is disbelieved, deemed inappropriate for the article, or gets the editor accused of trying to justify atrocities. Atrocities certainly took place, but that does not represent the scope of the term, which would rightly include cultural attitudes opposing the organized Church, modern political anti-clericalism, and every strain of opposition to clerical power, including its use in sociology to describe cultural attitudes, and its more moderate incarnations at various stages of history, including present day Western anti-clericalism, rather than the extremes of de-Christianization and mass executions. Nevertheless, editors are met with arguments comparing anti-clericalism with Nazism, allusions to Marx, the Bolsheviks, and Mao, and to Al Qaeda, and an insistence that challenging the current tone of the article is to rationalize atrocity. This attitude is not conducive to improving the article. While the radical dictatorship in France conducted what may have been the first modern atrocities, as well as prefigured totalitarian government in the twentieth century, this is a very selective understanding of the French Revolution as a whole, or anticlericalism during the period. --Aeemnrsu (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, until the Renaissance, the church ran everything useful at the local level except a police function, such as it was, and a secular court system. The history of the Western world since then is various factions, sometimes democratic, sometimes not, trying to relieve them of this "responsibility/power." When it was responsibility and no power (early middle ages and middle-middle ages maybe), nobody wanted it! But when it got to be "power" then it attracted attention of those who wanted it and were willing to overthrow the church to get it. When this was apparently democratic, the reader is inclined to sympathize. But when it was merely transference from one group of people who often were trying to use the power responsibly to a group of thugs "in the name of the people" or whatever, it is hard to sympathize.

In Haiti today (and probably other third world countries), the church still runs things at the local level. No one else wants to or even tries. "Government" consists of petty officials/thugs who try to rip people off. Yes, the church had authority/power. Somebody else wanted it. Student7 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in your statement relates to what I said above, apart from the assertion that anyone who challenged the church was a power hungry thug. All your arguments lead back to trying to de-legitimize the church's opponents. All requests for definition, context and scope are ignored. This encyclopedia is not the proper platform to endorse the exposure of the wickedness inherent in secular government, or any other point of view. Pushing the belief that anti-clericalism is motivated by selfishness, against a breadth, depth, and tone fitting for an encyclopedic article, is unhelpful.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found it helpful in understanding the history of the Western Civilization in the last 500 years or so. It makes almost no sense otherwise IMO. The church had power, tried to hang on to it and, ultimately, failed. Some of the power was poorly used or misapplied. Other groups wanted it and took it. It is similarly easy to automatically legitimize people who successfully competed with the church for power. Student7 (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There are other reasons to seek power or to challenge those who have it than ambition. If not, how did the church get power in the first place. Also, how does adding relevant historical detail, a clear definition, and a broader understanding of anti-clericalism equate to legitimizing the church's rivals. It seems to me that it would remove the skew in this article against the church's competitors and critics, which is the point. An article shouldn't endorse one perspective or historical truism.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I want to react to one point "It seems to me that when the topic is anti-Communism and Mccarthy-ism which was short-lived and where no one was killed, there is a lot of hand-wringing." No one was killed ? At least two people were killed, don't you remember ? Fortunately, it was short-lived : when McCarthy started to see communists in the white house, even the most anti-communists decided it was time for him to retire. But your example of anti-Communism and McCarthysm is wrong. You should have compare to clericalism. So, how many people did the church killed ? Should I talk to you about the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the crusades and all the holy wars ? Should I talk about all the innocents burned alive for being "heretics" ? The church is not only responsible for killing people, it helped to establish despotism and tyranny all over the world. The church disapproved rebellion, even against bad king. Why ? Because the church was a part of the political power. Because the church perceived taxes. The church was also responsible for destroying cultures, arts, sciences... Well, that's what all anti-clericalism is about. That's what Anti-Clericalism is against. It does not necessarily means that anti-clericalism leads to killing of priest. Just like being anti-monarchy leads to kill any king. Or being anti-criminal means to be for death penalty. Jikary 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Well the Mexican murders were contemporaneous with the modern era when people should have known better. Our world today derives from the ancient "problems" you mentioned which weren't considered problems at the time of course, unless you were their target. They were considered "problems" retroactively from the modern era. Democracy is an experiment which seems to be in decline right now. Russia, Iran and other countries are bringing back the First Estates etc. The church has never been democratic. Apparently that bothers you to the point of rationalizing persecution. See how easy it is? Student7 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the killing of preists was justified. To stick with the McCarthyism comparison, if you go to the McCarthyism page, they have quite a long section on the "Origins of McCarthyism" giving context about the cultural and political situation of America at the time. It seems to me to that an article about anti-clericalism ought to mention the influence of clericalism, that is, those ideologies endorsing that religious bodies weild political power. Anti-clericalism is closely tied with historical ancien regimes, and that should be covered in depth to provide context for the phenomenon. There is also no coverage of the historical legacy of anti-clericalism, how it changed the societies it occurred in, what vestiges and baggage it has left behind.

Other issues are 1) to say that Voltaire's criticism led to the assualts is vague and seems to charge him with complicity with the Reign of Terror. I would argue that Revolution Era repression derives more from Rousseau anyway. 2)that anti-clericalism is “considered to be one of the major popular forces underlying the 16th Century Reformation” isn't talked about anywhere but in that sentence. 3) The bit about Freemasonry just makes clear that there is an accusation, but does not evaluate its truth. 4) There is no mention of present day anti-clericalism in liberal parties, particularly in Europe. 5) some other important incidents to cover are Bismarck's Kulturkampf and I think Henry VIII's Dissolution of the Monasteries might be relevant.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So far three people on this page, myself included, have claimed that this page has a negative bias, that it focuses almost exclusively on violence undertaken on behalf of anti-clericalism and not the broader opposition to clerical political power or its pursuit through non-violent means, and that it lacks of coverage of the circumstances which created anti-clericalism as a movement. You've accused all of us of justifying or rationalizing murder. Not only is this baseless and unnecessarily accusatory, but it also does not engage with the specific points of criticism brought up. The subject of this article is defined in the introduction as "a historical movement that opposes religious (generally Catholic) institutional power and influence," and this is not reflected in the scope of this article (the source for this definition is even broader, defining anti-clericalism as "opposition to the clergy for its real or alleged influence in political and social affairs, for its doctrinairism, for its privileges or property, or for any other reason"). This article should inform the reader about the phenomenon, rather than presenting a misleadingly selective account of it. My posts are intended with that in mind.

--Aeemnrsu (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination

I'm not sure this article belongs in the 'Religious Discrimination and Persecution' set. This should be covered under discrimination against or persecution of Christians Christians. Of course, it could be justified as an article on discrimination against or persecution of a particular sect, presumably Catholicism, except that the article claims not to be exclusive to Catholics, that there has been persecution of and discrimination against Catholics that was not anti-clerical, that is, did not target the church itself, and lastly because, as defined in this article: "Anti-clericalism is a historical movement that opposes religious (generally Catholic) institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, and the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen. It suggests a more active and partisan role than mere laïcité, and has at times been violent, leading to attacks and seizure of church property." While violent anti-clericalism would be persecution, that all non-violent opposition to the political power of clergy (to a degree more 'active' than laicite) would necessarily constitute persecution or discrimination seems a bit iffy. I would say that discrimination against and persecution of Catholics (assuming that is the reason for this article's inclusion in the religious discrimination and persecution set) and anti-clericalism have alot of overlap, but also have alot of areas that don't. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a page on the persecution of Catholics, just that this should not be it. Anti-Catholicism seems a more fitting page, stating that "Anti-Catholicism is a generic term for discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at the Roman Catholic Church or its members. The term also applies to the religious persecution of Catholics or to a "religious orientation opposed to Catholicism." That would solve the problems of needing an article exclusive to Catholics, covering discrimination against Catholics that were not members of the clergy, and which was clearly focused on discrimination and persecution exclusively. Of course, violent/coercive examples of anti-clericalism should remain on the page, but I think a page more unambiguously and exclusively on the subject of discrimination against Catholics should replace it as part of the set. --Aeemnrsu (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)