What examples of religious stupidity can you think of? I know about Sylvester Graham who I have already written about elsewhere. Then there is John Harvey Kellogg.Also there the Shakers who did not believe so they died out. Remember Jones-town? Anything else?
How far back do you want to go? In my opinion the break between the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox church centered on some stupid issues:the Filoque (whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son, or just the Father) and whether the communion bread should be leavened or unleavened (the Crusaders burned people at the stake over that one!) In the Russian Orthodox Church, reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon in the seventeenth century triggered a backlash movement known as the Old Believers. Nikon discovered that the name of Jesus had been misspelled when it was translated from the Greek and ordered a correction. But the Old Believers regarded this as heresy and insisted on keeping their misspellings! They also opposed another of Nikon's innovations: using three fingers instead of two fingers to give the blessing. And they rejected coffee, tea, tobacco, forks,telephones, railroad trains, and potatoes (until they discovered they could make vodka out of them). Then there was the Skotopsky cult, which mistook the Greek word "plodites" (be fruitful) in the Bible with "plotites" (castrate yourselves). All the male followers cut off their balls. That practice took a surprisingly long time to eradicate--lasting from czarist times into the Soviet era. In Western Europe, there was the flagellant movement of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in which processions of Christians would whip themselves, in commemoration of Christ's suffering. The inevitable result was and outbreak of violence against Jews wherever the flagellants marched. To stop this, the Church ordered that if people were going to flagellate themselves, they should do it in privacy. Finally, when Saint Jerome did his monumental translation of the Bible into the Latin Vulgate in the fourth century, he made some errors. For exmple, where the Hebrew says in Exodus 34 that Moses's face was shining when he came down from Mount Sinai, Jerome mistakenly translated this as Moses was wearing horns. So various medieval and Renaissance representations of Moses, including the famous sculpture by Michaelangelo, show a horny Moses!
Probably another reason for the rift was the political rivalry between Rome and Byzantium, both of which cities wanted to establish themselves as the center of Christianity during that period. Often the things which seem like religious stupidity are politically motivated. Henry VIII's reformation in England is one example. It was done not because there was a popular outcry against the perverse excesses of Rome, but so Henry could get a divorce, grab lots of land and wealth belonging to the church, and to cement the mystique the Tudor dynasty, welding church and state into one unit. It was partly this state controlled religion which led in the end the the English Civil War. In our day, the stupidity of the militant Islamists is quite alarming. I don't mean ordinary Muslims, but the violent fanatics such as the one's who are going around in Syria at present, carrying out summary executions etc. I read of the case of a man who was selling diesel and had a sign advertizing his business as 'god of fuel', for which he was killed on the spot. They want to kill people because they belong to a different religion, or even the wrong branch of Islam. That is probably about the worst you get in terms of religious stupidity. But again, Islamic extremism is partly or even mainly a political rather than a purely religious thing. Other good example might be the mutual slaughter which took place between Hindus and Muslims when India was partitioned at the end of British rule. The conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. The burning of Bruno and that of Savonarola. Also multitudes of heretics and witches. The case of the cardinal who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. The 30 years war. The list could go on and on.
WRONG! Henry VIII did NOT want a divorce ... he needed to be freed a vincula, not merely a mensa et thoro ... and divorce would only secure the latter. What Henry VIII wanted was an ANNULMENT. It's impossible to understand the politics of the English Reformation if you don't get that one right. And ... for what it's worth, I do believe that Henry VIII was sincere in his belief and his reasoning. A prolonged series of stillbirths and miscarriages persuaded him that God was indeed opposed to his union with his deceased brother's wife, and that he had been misguided in seeking (and obtaining) Papal dispensation to contract such a union ... which of course he had done for political reasons. I do believe it was genuine contrition and remorse that made him see that he had sinned - and was being judged - for having placed the political and diplomatic expediency above divine decree. His problem, though, was that the only person to whom he could appeal to set aside a Papal dispensation, was the Pope. And the Pope, of course, was a captive of the uncle of the deceased brother's wife whom Henry had married. And since the deceased brother's wife's uncle would not be happy if she was cast aside, the Pope naturally did his master's bidding. In such circumstances, what is a devout believer to do?
Islam, as a religion, is about 600 years younger than Christianity. What were Christians doing 600 years ago, when their religion was of about the same maturity as Islam is now? Lollardy, anyone??
Annulment or divorce - it amounts to the same thing, and doesn't affect my argument. I don't think Henry was at all contrite about marrying his dead brothers wife. He wanted a son, and had lost any sexual interest in the Queen, or any faith that she would bear the desired heir. I don't think a man who was 'devout' would be writing a defence of catholicism against the reformers only a few years before stealing all their land, forcing monks and nuns into marriage and destroying Abbeys etc. Seems to me more of a worldly ego maniac.
None of the Christians of 600 years ago had any notion of democracy. In Egypt we've seen a popular movement for just that. And in other Arab countries. The Christians of 600 years ago didn't have a more socially and technologically developed culture there from which they could draw ideas. The Persians = Iranians, had a high culture 500 BC. If you are implying that because we did this in the past it's ok for them to do that now - forget it.
I don't make my points by implication. If I want to say something, I say it. Hadn't you noticed that about me?
On the contrary - they are wholly and fundamentally different things. And it affects your argument no end. The fact that he was concerned with the canonical, theological and ecclesiological niceties and cared about the difference sufficiently to go about it the way he did demonstrates absolutely and unequivocally that this was not simply a case of a man with a lot of power saying "I'm tired of my wife so I'll just ditch her and invent a whole new church to allow me to do it" The argument you are advancing is, I am afraid, typical of the mindset that attempts to project 20th century thought patters and attitudes back onto 16th century figures, and then try to use that as a key to interpreting their actions and behaviours. It produces some pretty screwy results.
Henry tried first to get an annulment, because that's what was available from the Church and the Bible is pretty clear about Jesus' condemnation of divorce. But when the Pope wouldn't cooperate (Henry's wife's nephew was the Holy Roman Emperor, who was nearer to Rome than Henry), Henry had no problem doing the "annulment" himself, confiscating the Church's property, and embarking on a career as a serial killer--"divorce English style".
It's pretty clear about not marrying your deceased brother's wife, too. And Roman Catholic Canon Law is pretty clear about what dispensations can be granted, and what dispensations cannot.
Deuteronomy 25:5 is pretty clear that a man must marry the wide of a deceased brother. This is called a levirate marriage. A son from this marriage is considered to be the deceased brother's heir. If the deceased brother had a male heir already, the earlier prohibition in Leviticus 20:221 against a man marrying his brother's wife takes precedence. But in Henry's case, that wasn't the case. As for the clarity of Catholic dispensations, a canon lawyer worth his salt could get around then if he put his mind to it. After all, there's Leviticus versus Deuteronomy to work with.
I think you miss the point I was making regarding dispensations. Dispensations may only be granted in respect of merely ecclesiastical laws - and anything which proceeds from scripture is NOT a merely ecclesiastical law. It is divine law. And divine law does not admit of dispensation.
