Rethinking the Spanish Inquisition

by

We all know the story. Catholics, mad with power, decided it was time to use their power to torture their people, so they started the Spanish Inquisition. In it, they needlessly abducted innocent civilians and subjected them to the most cruel torture after which they would burn them to death because they were bored.

Any reasonable person would express shock and horror at the Spanish Inquisition if that is indeed what happened. But the story told above is so nonsensical that I couldn’t believe it, and so I did a little research.

It turns out, the Iberian peninsula was occupied by the Muslims after a long and aggressive Jihad over the span of hundreds of years. Thanks to miraculous victories in Europe, the Muslims were held on the Iberian peninsula. There, the Christians and Jews suffered under their Muslim rulers.

After some time, the Christians started the crusades in response to raids on pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem. The pope promised salvation to those knights and lords who would wage war on the Muslims and free Jerusalem from their barbaric rule.

In the West, bit by bit the Christians took land back from the Muslims. This is where Spain came from: a response to the Muslim invasion with the intent to maintain control. The fighting was harsh and bloody, and the methods used by the Christians hardly Christian, yet compared to the times they lived in and the methods of their enemies, perhaps entirely forgivable.

Spain imposed a law saying that all Jews and Muslims must convert to the Catholic faith or leave. At the time, this was not an unreasonable law given the context and circumstances. In response, many Jews and Muslims left, but some converted.

The church started an inquisition of their own, which the Spanish took over in their peninsula. Their goals were simply to ensure that those who converted were sincere and those who were not sincere left.

Yes, horrible things happened. Horrible things always happen when you write a law targeting someone’s beliefs and outlawing certain ideas. See, if people disagree, then you have to enforce that law, and the only way to enforce a law is to kill the offender, since you cannot change their behavior and expect their ideas to change too.

The reason why I bring this up is because we need certain elements of the Spanish Inquisition if we are to remain free and safe in our country. To wit:

  • There is a state religion of the United States. There is a state religion of every country. The state religion is what you must believe in if you are to consider yourself American.
  • There is heterodoxy and orthodoxy when it comes to any religion. Orthodoxy are those teachings which perpetuate the religion, while heterodoxy diminishes it. If the religion is to survive, heterodoxy must be taken seriously and addressed. Heterodoxy believers must know that they do not conform to the orthodoxy, along with everyone else.
  • All religions are in competition one with another. There is the marketplace of ideas, and all religions are contending for the heart, mind, and soul of the people. Foreign religions must be identified, addressed, and isolated appropriately otherwise the competition will lead to open conflict.
  • The “priests” of the state religion is the state itself. They are tasked with identifying and labeling heterodoxy, isolating foreign religions, and maintaining a healthy set of orthodox beliefs. When the time comes to change beliefs, the priests are the ones who do it.

I know this kind of language bothers atheists. (I hear them shouting, “Ban all religions!!1!”) This infantile response is the exact sort of problem with heterodoxy. Heterodoxy is born either of incorrect teachings in the orthodox, or in misunderstandings of the orthodox. Typically, popular opinion morphs into heterodoxy. Sometimes heterodoxy is a good thing, but if it is, it is because it is born of knowledge, not ignorance. Those atheists who do not understand that their religion is just another sort of religion, and cannot pronounce clearly the teachings of their religion, deserve to be ignored.

Now, on to the dirty business.

What is the orthodox religion of the United States of America? Quite simply, it is found in the Declaration of Independence. It is also found in the philosophers who rightly claim a role in that document. If you cannot understand that document, and you do not believe that everything it teaches is the absolute truth, then you are in conflict with the United States of America itself. In short, you are an enemy, a threat to our very existence, our very nature.

Who are the priests of the orthodox religion of the United States? You might be tempted to say it is our government officials, or perhaps the Supreme Court, or some other official. You would be wrong. Read the Declaration carefully and you will see who is authorized to speak on behalf of that religion, and the answer is “Us.” We are the guardians of our own state religion.

This is an important part. Unlike every other country which is top-down, we are bottom-up. We chose to be that way for an important reason: governments are, by nature, corrupt.

Have you taken your job as priest of the American religion seriously? Can you name the fundamental doctrines of our nation, and can you spell out how we are different than every other country on the earth? If not, then what kind of priest are you, and how long will that religion last?

Now, on to other important, relevant topics: What heterodoxies are being taught out there? Can you name the principle challengers? Do you rightly identify them as the enemy of our state, our country, our essence? Jesus spoke of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. Who are the wolves in sheep’s clothing in our state? What are they whispering?

The threat of the Muslim invasion of the United States is real. There are people who have determined that they want to change America into a Muslim state, and impose Sharia Law on us. These people actually exist, and they are a real threat. There are other threats just as sinister and just as evil. (Remember, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and so it’s rather easy to readily identify these threats just by the company they take!)

What to do? How do you keep these ideas out of our country? First, you identify the ideas as a threat, and clearly label them. Then you do your own American Inquisition. Obviously, we don’t believe it does any good to kick people out or kill them if they think differently than we do, but we should take material threats very seriously and execute on them accordingly.

But when it comes to ideas, the way we isolate and contain the foreign ideas that threaten our existence is to call them out and point them out. When a wolf is in sheep’s clothing, label that wolf clearly and explicitly. Then when the wolf speaks, you will know what he is truly saying.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Rethinking the Spanish Inquisition”

  1. Jason Gardner Says:

    I agree and will take it to the next level.

    You seem to be alluding to the question “what is a nation?” The modern, globalist way of thinking is that there is no nation to speak of. The difference between Britain and the Congo is basically language. We are just a bunch of independent economic units out there, hanging out doing nothing but buying crap and working.

    This is wrong. Fundamentally, there are two things that traditionally define a nation. Blut und Boden, or blood and soil. I would add a third in political ideology and consensus rights. (A bit of an american invention.)

    First, a nation needs a location. (North America will do just fine for this example.)

    Second, a nation needs blood. Who are we?

    If you go to the WW2 graveyard in Normandy, France you see plenty of crosses that bear the sentence:

    “Here Rests in Honored Glory, a Comrade in Arms, Known But to God”

    It’s very moving and somber. The closest I’ve come to seeing immortality and eternity. But why did he die? Who did he sacrifice his own life for?

    Was the the African cab driver in New York? The Vietnamese toenail salon gal? Or was it his family back home? His cousins, his father, his mother, his children, nieces and nephews? So they could have a better life? I would hazard to guess that he wanted his family and community to be secure in their beliefs, property and future.

    I am also willing to guess he died in noble glory to protect what he saw as a noble way of life for his family and his people.

    I am more that sure he didn’t do it out of a need for a job.

    People like this, making sacrifices like this, for a restricted and blood related set of comrades define a nation. Those people, and those sacrifices are special and do not apply to all of humanity. They are reserved only for Americans.

    If we allow other people, with other ideas and other opinions about a proper ways of life, meaning other cultures into our nation we will destroy ourselves an become aliens in our own lands.

    We are already seeing this now. When we look at George Washington we see ourselves. He could easily be my great-great-great-great-grandfather. When a Somali immigrant looks at him he sees a foreigner. No different that what I see when I look at Osman Mahamuud.

    What impact will that have on america in 100 years when very few people look like Washington? Will we uphold the values of the founders who look like weird white guys to the mulatto masses? Probably not. At that point we die as a nation and will be replaced by our guests.

    At that point the giant experiment in self government is now over. We become another nation of the great unwashed masses. The light of liberty is extinguished.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      Excellent points.

      I would add: Many (but perhaps not most) immigrants do assimilate and allow themselves to be adopted into our culture. We are special in that we have something close to blood-kinship but it is not blood.

      I think you are close to forming a really easy to explain argument about why nations need to exist. Just like family gives us purpose and meaning, nations give us a broader perspective, and transforms that bond of family into genuine concern and provides a framework where we can nobly sacrifice our self-interest for the good of a significant segment of mankind. Rather than trying to create one nation for all people, we need people to build their own nations where they can build their bonds as strong as blood. It’s going to start with common culture and language, and sometimes you’ll find cases where two cultures or languages are able to merge, but usually that is not the case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: