Skeptical

I wasn't looking for an emotional rant, just some indication of the complete true facts that the torture methods employed were grotesque by any reasonable definition. One can slant things just as easily by exclusion of certain facts as be inclusion. Telling a partial story without the full context is not being objective. One doesn't have to rant to say that certain acts were repugnant and vile.

Actually no, but neither do I think it intellectually honest to take the approach that "things weren't so bad". Things were bad, they may not have been 9M people burned at the stake bad, but tens of thousands tortured and/or killed is quite enough. Again, reading your site I get the impression you aren't trying to convey that it wasn't as bad as people have said, I get the impression you are trying to say it wasn't all that bad in general and to minimize the visceral repugnance that one has when confronted by some of the acts that took place, even if the numbers have been exaggerated.

Again, saying something like "procedures were tightened" when talking about the torture of innocents seems to me, well, a little on the wishy washy side. One can be strong in the conveying of facts without spinning it to try to minimize what occured.

I don't think one can claim objectivity by selecting facts and leaving out key information that is _necessary_ to understand the topic. The topic was torture and its frequency. Your response included bare information and a bit about "abuses" and "procedures being tightened", that smacks me as an apologetic unless you are going to speak to what exactly you mean by "abuses" and what you mean by procedures being "tightened".

"rarely" is a meaningless and subjective term without context. One mans rarely is another mans frequently. Unless you have something more specific or can say what a reasonable estimate based on available data is, I don't consider this a real answer.

sorompio

As Robert Ingersoll said, "throne and altar were twins: two vultures from the same egg". Every crime of religion that the "secular" authorities committed is imputable fully to the Church and its framework, there were no separation between Church and State then.

Bede

Sorompio,

I have asked a Spanish friend to look up the authorites you mentioned. A French friend chipped in too. My conclusion is that you <falsely> implied that you have read them when you have not. None of them seem to disagree with me and you have not provided any references to show that they do. Thus, a word of warning. Never try to bullshit that you are better informed than you really are because you will look like an idiot. BTW, Ingersoll is worthless out of date anti-religious propaganda.
All executions were by the secular arm. The inquisition always handed over captial cases. 10,000 thus includes all executions.
Menéndez died a century ago long before the inquisition archives had been properly investigated. Please do me the favour of using up-to-date sources. Julio Caro Baroja (died in 1995) was mainly an anthropologist and ethnologist rather than a historian. He did write a book on the Jews in Spain, but it's not one of his most important books. He summarizes his opinion on the Inquisition thus "I do not believe, in short, the Marxist interpretation of the Inquisition according to which it was instituted to raise money, but neither do I believe the conservative one, which presents it as just another honorable tribunal (...) I believe it was simply a harsh instrument of the political powers which ended up becoming stronger than those who had created it (...) The Inquisition, as it is the case with many institutions,ended up by not serving this or that purpose but finally becoming an end in itself. And this is perhaps its worst vice." (Caro Baroja, "Los judêos en la España Moderna y Contemporánea", vol. 1, pp. 356-7)
My figures included the entire Spanish empire.
Benassar is actually quite nuanced on the issue, even saying the Inquisition was much fairer than secular courts of the time. He headed a French collective work on the subject that is regarded as a reference. (Benassar is French and Jewish, and teaches at Toulouse's University du Mirail). I don't see how he's supposed to conflict with my article. Ricardo Garcêa Cárcel is pretty nuanced too, since he corrects the figures given by Llorente and others. In his book "Las culturas del Siglo de Oro" (Madrid 1989, p. 168) he writes: "The number of those tried by the Inquisition has been vigorously disputed. Llorente estimated a total of 348.021. Today, our knowledge of sources such as the records of religious cases, which unfortunately only exist from 1550 to 1700, allows us to coclude that Llorente's figure is exaggerated. Based on diverse speculations, the total number of those tried by the Spanish Inquisition until its abolition in 1833 must have been around 150.000, less than half of Llorente's estimation." This is the same figure I give in my FAQ. Note that, as Serafên Fanjul has pointed out in his excellent book "Al-Andalus contra España" (Madrid 2000, p.22) Garcêa Cárcel says "tried", not convicted, and much less executed. Execution rate was about 4%.

On the basis of your aggressive attitude, <false> representations and a complete lack of engagement with the sources (even the ones you mentioned yourself) I see little point in interacting with you further.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede

Skepitical,

Remember, I said my FAQ was not for people who want to engage in a point scoring exercise or feel righteous outrage at how horrible Christians are. As this is you down to a t, it's hardly surprising you don't like it. Given fundie atheists like you hate my FAQ, I can only assume it is fair and unbiased.

I won't be interacting with you further as your posts suggest it would not be worthwhile.

Best wishes

Bede

Roger Pearse

After which it seems more or less a moral duty to go and beat up a clergyman.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

sorompio

I'm sorry, Bede, but your emotional agenda is now clear.
Since you declare no interest in interacting, I won't present you any sources further or answer your arguments. You seem very interested in figures and not in the impact of cruel and unjust procedures, and it is clear why. My main objection was not figures, but your contempt towards Lea (such contempt goes against the opinion of Kamen and GarcÃ*a Cárcel, among others).

About this, sorry, I apologize. By "fatal" I didn't mean killed. The commentary is based on Borromeo's account of victims affected by torture.

sorompio

I cannot imagine how did you reach such preposterous conclusion.