I don’t think that question’s going to give you the information you want—when in the last couple thousand of years, if Jews had wanted to stone apostates to death, would they have been able to do it? The diasporan condition doesn’t really allow it. I think Christianity really is the canonical example of the withering away of religiosity—and that happened through a succession of internal revolutions (“In Praise of Folly”, Lutheranism, the English reformation etc.) which themselves happened for a variety of reasons, not all pure or based in rationality (Henry VIII’s split with Rome, for example) but had the effect of demystifying the church and thereby shrinking the domain of its influence. I think. Although it’s hard to interpret the Englightenment as a movement internal to Christianity, so this only gets you so far, I suppose.
when in the last couple thousand of years, if Jews had wanted to stone apostates to death, would they have been able to do it?
Unless we’re talking about apostates who converted to Christianity (or Islam etc.) and claimed that society’s protection, then Jews could probably have stoned apostates at any point until civil rights were granted to Jews. Which happened in different European countries at any point between, offhand, 15th and 20th centuries.
when in the last couple thousand of years, if Jews had wanted to stone apostates to death, would they have been able to do it? The diasporan condition doesn’t really allow it.
You sure about this? I don’t know much about this topic, but I remember reading somewhere that 200 or more years ago Jews were often allowed to give punishment to their own people within diaspora. They couldn’t stone a Christian/Muslim from the majority population, but they could stone (or otherwise kill, or otherwise severely punish) one of their own—unless the given sinner already converted to Christianity/Islam and left their community. So converting to majority religion could be safe, but converting to atheism or some heresy within Judaism would not.
There are cases of children of Jewish parents who were baptized in secret by Christian maids, and then taken away by the Christian authorities to be raised Christian when the maid informed said authorities of this.
Baruch Spinoza is probably the most famous available piece of evidence. He was shunned (cf. excommunication), not executed. Not sure what conclusion to draw, given the Enlightenment era.
Internal revolutions, i.e. schisms, are key in my understanding too. I suspect that all the wars of the Reformation had a lot to do with the re-invention of the concept of religious toleration and its eventual spread across Europe. But perhaps even without soaking a continent in blood, schism can do its work. Exposure to a variety of religions seems likely to make people skeptical of enthroning any one of them.
Thus, atheism is only marginally relevant to freedom from religious oppression. The real key is alternate religions. If you would free people, underwrite the books or broadcasts by the next Erasmus or Luther or Rumi.
Thus, atheism is only marginally relevant to freedom from religious oppression. The real key is alternate religions. If you would free people, underwrite the books or broadcasts by the next Erasmus or Luther or Rumi.
I don’t think that question’s going to give you the information you want—when in the last couple thousand of years, if Jews had wanted to stone apostates to death, would they have been able to do it? The diasporan condition doesn’t really allow it. I think Christianity really is the canonical example of the withering away of religiosity—and that happened through a succession of internal revolutions (“In Praise of Folly”, Lutheranism, the English reformation etc.) which themselves happened for a variety of reasons, not all pure or based in rationality (Henry VIII’s split with Rome, for example) but had the effect of demystifying the church and thereby shrinking the domain of its influence. I think. Although it’s hard to interpret the Englightenment as a movement internal to Christianity, so this only gets you so far, I suppose.
Unless we’re talking about apostates who converted to Christianity (or Islam etc.) and claimed that society’s protection, then Jews could probably have stoned apostates at any point until civil rights were granted to Jews. Which happened in different European countries at any point between, offhand, 15th and 20th centuries.
You sure about this? I don’t know much about this topic, but I remember reading somewhere that 200 or more years ago Jews were often allowed to give punishment to their own people within diaspora. They couldn’t stone a Christian/Muslim from the majority population, but they could stone (or otherwise kill, or otherwise severely punish) one of their own—unless the given sinner already converted to Christianity/Islam and left their community. So converting to majority religion could be safe, but converting to atheism or some heresy within Judaism would not.
There are cases of children of Jewish parents who were baptized in secret by Christian maids, and then taken away by the Christian authorities to be raised Christian when the maid informed said authorities of this.
Cite?
It happened, and was a significant international scandal … in 1858.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
Nope, not sure at all.
Baruch Spinoza is probably the most famous available piece of evidence. He was shunned (cf. excommunication), not executed. Not sure what conclusion to draw, given the Enlightenment era.
Internal revolutions, i.e. schisms, are key in my understanding too. I suspect that all the wars of the Reformation had a lot to do with the re-invention of the concept of religious toleration and its eventual spread across Europe. But perhaps even without soaking a continent in blood, schism can do its work. Exposure to a variety of religions seems likely to make people skeptical of enthroning any one of them.
Thus, atheism is only marginally relevant to freedom from religious oppression. The real key is alternate religions. If you would free people, underwrite the books or broadcasts by the next Erasmus or Luther or Rumi.
The “next Luther” was, arguably, Hitler. Fortunately, Lutherans today do not think very highly of Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies or the frankly obscene Vom Schem Hamphoras.
See also: Yvain’s “A Parable on Obsolete Ideologies”.