Albert Cipriani

I justify the Inquisition because I believe in mind control. You do too, if you would only give it some thought. The only difference between civil courts of today and Inquisitional courts of yesteryear is a difference in kind and degree, not substance.

As Kant said, thought is insipient action. Ergo, what we think has a way of becoming what we do. Ergo, the state has a vested interest in suppressing thoughts it deems counterproductive to the state. The state used to be the Church. But outside of that detail, it’s still business as usual.

If you expect me to take seriously your outrage over the Catholic Inquisition, you need to be for striking down all laws against bad thoughts. For example, it ought not to be illegal to threaten to kill the president, conspire to hire hit men to do in spouses, or write books describing how to kidnap and torture to death children without getting caught. If you support these laws that lord it over our modern minds, you have no basis of support to be against the Inquisition which lorded it over our medieval minds. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

http://www.geocities.com/albert_cipriani/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/religiousphilosophy/

BDS

Oh, come off it, Albert. Why should we be required to support one form of oppression, just because we support other forms of oppresion. That makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying, "If you support traffic tickets for speeding, you must support traffic tickets for failing to wear one's seat belt."

The Inquisition was viciously evil, of course. It's interesting to contrast it to the European Witch Craze, which, according to H.R. Trevor-Roper, may have killed half a million Europeans between about 1520 and 1660. We moderns see the Inquisition as excuting people who committed real crimes (no doubt there actually were heretics then, as there are now), but we no longer think the crimes worthy of punishment. The witch craze, on the other hand, punished people for crimes we think fictitious, but which, if they had been real (eating babies, poisoning wells, sex with Satan) would merit punishment.

Both crazes were prolonged by the practice of torturing confessions out of people. It's hardly surprising that many people confessed and accused others, during the vicious torture to which they were subjected.

Obloquium

That is exactly what I'm saying.

John A. Broussard

Thank you. You've reached the nub of our disagreement. Please give me an example from our judicial system where thoughts are punished.

I'm not talking about conspiracies, writing evil books, engaging in witchcraft. I want THOUGHTS.

HRG

The difference is that today no thought can be counterproductive to the state. The state is either identical to the legal order, or bound by it (depending of which philosophy of law you prefer).
All three of your examples are actions, not thoughts.

Regards, HRG.

rosy tetra

Maybe a more appropriate analogy would be, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?� About holding a belief that threatens to overthrow the state’s fundamental power structure.

BDS

Thoughts are regularly punished here in the United States. There are many cases in which an action may be legal or illegal depending on the motives of the perpetrator. For example if you hit someone with your car, it might be a non-criminal accident, or it might be first degree murder. The sole difference is the thoughts of the perpetrator.

Albert Cipriani

Surely you’ve heard of the latest activist innovation called “hate crimes.� :angry: People in our country are no longer punished only for the crimes they commit, but for the thoughts they had in their head at the time of the crime’s commission. So God help you if someone overhears you use the “n� word while using your gun. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

fast

Or suspicion/assumption of thought as in the crime of complicity.

Awmte

Correction: The thoughts of the perpetrator as evidenced by external considerations. The evidence must support a conclusion of intent on the part of the perpetrator and he is, thus, no more punished for his thoughts only than a murderer is punished solely for his thoughts.