Wednesday, December 08, 2010

The Fall of Rome

A nutty state legislator in Illinois blamed "open homosexuality" for the fall of Rome. You've heard that before, it's a truism that is repeated without questioning, it was their lack of morals that caused the collapse of the mighty Roman Empire. But this columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, Neil Steinberg, decided to focus in on the statement and point out the obvious.
"If you look at the sociological history of societies that have failed," said Stephens (R-Greenville), "what are some of the commonalities- One of those is that open homosexuality becomes accepted."

A common idea: Mighty Rome toppled because it allowed those light in the togas to prance unchallenged through the Forum. We're on our way to ruin, too, not because of ascendant China or a collapse of political discourse, but because we allow gays and lesbians to live their lives with only moderate harassment.

That's funny. Not ha-ha funny, but ironic funny, and demands we shine a light down this well of ignorance.

First, the Roman Empire -- even lopping off the first 700 years, from Rome's founding to Julius Caesar -- lasted 500 years.

We should only fall so quickly.

Second, such a swath of land -- the empire stretched from Great Britain to Egypt -- had, over half a millennium, various views toward homosexuality. Yes, at times Romans would chat about their catamite lovers with an ease strange to our ears. But other times they'd be put to death for it.

If tolerance didn't topple Rome, what did-

Let us consult Edward Gibbon, whose classic The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire isn't read in high schools, at least not Downstate, apparently, the way it once was.

Gibbon puts the blame -- and this really is too delicious -- not on homosexuality, but on Christianity, which he says made the Roman population more worried about their place in heaven than about barbarians at the gate.Was Rome felled by gays or Goths or Christianity?

The conclusion is obvious, isn't it?

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

RIP, John.

December 08, 2010 9:48 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Jim, thanks for passing this article along. Perhaps the greatest danger to our country is ignorance pedaled by politicians and media figures.

December 09, 2010 6:34 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I've always been amused by the "Rome fell because of its immorality" examples ill-informed folks used. What is remarkable about Rome is not that it fell, of course, but that it endured for so long: more than 1200 years in the west, and another 1000 in Constantinople. The anecdotes used about the supposed immorality are almost always from gossip about the emperors Caligula and Nero, who reigned 400 years before the empire ended in the west.

Besides, when the empire fell, Christianity had been mandatory for decades.

December 09, 2010 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so, Christianity caused the fall of the Roman empire?

do you guys think it will do the same to America?

btw, Robo, you just spouted oxymoronic nonsense

when Christianity is mandatory, it is no longer Christianity

the whole idea is a personal relationship bewteen an individual and God

bringing the state into the mix is like bringing matter and anti-matter together

December 09, 2010 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was, indeed, a ridiculous comment about mandatory Christianity. Anyone who knows a shred about Christianity knows that it can't be mandatory.

December 09, 2010 9:41 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon noted:

“That was, indeed, a ridiculous comment about mandatory Christianity. Anyone who knows a shred about Christianity knows that it can't be mandatory.”

Anyone who knows a shred about history knows that doesn’t matter. Christians will force people to convert whenever the means and will are present.

From: http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/History:%20World/4817.htm

“The Catholic Church helped the Spanish monarchy administer to the native population in the New World. The Church, by being subject to the Spanish monarchy, is also to be held accountable to the numerous evils inflicted upon the Indians in the Spanish colonies. In many cases they were forced to convert to Christianity, and their views about god and religion were not taken into account. The Catholic Church incurred a great injustice to the native population in the New World. They were reduced to second class citizens, and forced to work toward goals that they did not fully understand. Through the writings of Las Casas, it is seen how the Indians were slaughtered needlessly, and how they were baptized without regard to their feelings. Cortez paved the way for missions to be founded in the New World supposedly for the good of the Indian population. This, however, also turned against them. The Catholic Church role in the lives of the native population was a negative one due to its alliance with the Spanish monarchy and its forced conversion of the Indians.”


From: http://www.romanhomes.com/your_roman_vacation/quarters/jewish-quarter.htm

“Moreover, oppression occurred in everyday life. The Jews were at times falsely accused of committing "ritual murders" of Christians, in particular of children. The false accusations were excuses for outbreaks of violence and of murders of Jews. On the other hand, whenever possible, Jewish children were forced to convert. The Jews were also periodically compelled to attend mass in Catholic churches, where they were lectured to convert.”

Fortunately, our western society has learned from these dark episodes of Christian control, and has born a more secular form of government, which usually can keep the Christian compulsion for control of other peoples’ belief in check.


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

December 09, 2010 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Nevertheless, in Rome after the 390's Christianity was the state religion and paganism was outlawed. After the reformation, there was the notion of "Cuius regio, eius religio;" the head of state determines the religion of his country.


On a broader basis, is not civil denial of same-gender marriage rights based on Chrisian scripture not mandatory religion.

Is insisting that children recite a Pledge of Allegiance with religious statements not mandatory religion?

I understand the evangelical notion of individual salvation and a personal relationship with god, but Christianity has a history of insisting on adherence. You can't have it both ways, honey.

December 09, 2010 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anyone who knows a shred about history knows that doesn’t matter. Christians will force people to convert whenever the means and will are present."

I know a shred about history.

I'm a Christian.

And I'd never "force" someone to "convert", even if I had "means and will".

You see, that actually wouldn't be "conversion".

Anyone who knows a shred about scripture knows that!

"our western society has learned from these dark episodes of Christian control,"

Christianity is actually our heritage. There are no "episodes" about it. While most of our values derive form our Christian heritage, they weren't forced on anyone. It was simple moral suasion.

"and has born a more secular form of government,"

since the Earl Warren court about 50 years ago, some misinterpretation of our Constitution on this matter, but it wasn't a reaction to any "dark episodes" at the time

the Roberts court is methodically restoring a normal state of affairs at this time

"which usually can keep the Christian compulsion for control of other peoples’ belief in check""

there is no evidence that Christians are trying to control other peoples' belief by any other means than social interaction

just like you try to do, cinco

"Nevertheless, in Rome after the 390's Christianity was the state religion and paganism was outlawed."

see, less than twenty years later, Rome was sacked by barabarians

it wasn't Christianity anymore

when you "force" to believe something, you don't have a society of converts

just a society of hypocrites

until then, Rome had a true Christian society for most of the fourth century because all religions were protected and the church lifted up Christ to draw in potential converts

"On a broader basis, is not civil denial of same-gender marriage rights based on Chrisian scripture not mandatory religion."

no, it isn't, you poor deluded fool

historically, every religion and every society, including the atheist USSR have considered homosexuality to be detrimental to the common good

Christianity is unique in that there is a greater tolerance for sinners, which is why today, tolerance for homosexuality is mainly a phenomena seen in societies with a Christian heritage

sorry if that deprives you of a straw punching dummy but facts are facts

"Is insisting that children recite a Pledge of Allegiance with religious statements not mandatory religion?"

well, techincally, the mention in the pledge refers to the civic religion of vague deism espoused by Thomas Jefferson

but, I do agree that pledging to an inanimate object is a type of idol worship which shouldn't be mandatory

"I understand the evangelical notion of individual salvation and a personal relationship with god, but Christianity has a history of insisting on adherence. You can't have it both ways, honey."

I'm only trying to have it one way, maple syrup

and it's not yours

Christianity has no history of "insisting on adherence"

despite the efforts of a few nuts, like Henry VIII, every Christian society has tolerated the existence of non-Christians

you can't say the same about non-Christian societies

December 09, 2010 11:13 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon claimed:

“I know a shred about history.

I'm a Christian.

And I'd never "force" someone to "convert", even if I had "means and will".

You see, that actually wouldn't be "conversion".

Anyone who knows a shred about scripture knows that!”

Just because YOU wouldn’t force someone to convert is irrelevant. If you had a larger shred of history, you’d know that Christians conquered all sorts of “heathen” lands and forced them to convert to Christianity. Here’s one little shred for you:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades

“Campaign against Livonians (1198–1212)

Moving in the wake of German merchants who were now following the old trading routes of the Vikings, a monk named Meinhard landed at the mouth of the Daugava river in present-day Latvia in 1180 and was made bishop in 1186. Pope Celestine III proclaimed a crusade against the Baltic heathens in 1195, which was reiterated by Pope Innocent III and a crusading expedition led by Meinhard's successor, Bishop Berthold of Hanover, landed in Livonia (part of present-day Latvia, surrounding the Gulf of Riga) in 1198. Although the crusaders won their first battle, Bishop Berthold was mortally wounded and the crusaders were repulsed.

In 1199, Albert of Buxhoeveden was appointed by the Archbishop Hartwig II of Bremen to Christianise the Baltic countries. By the time Albert died 30 years later, the conquest and formal Christianisation of present-day Estonia and northern Latvia was complete. Albert began his task by touring the Empire, preaching a Crusade against the Baltic countries, and was assisted in this by a Papal Bull, which declared that fighting against the Baltic heathens was of the same rank as participating in a crusade to the Holy Land. Though he landed in the mouth of the Daugava in 1200 with only 23 ships and 500 soldiers, the bishop's efforts ensured that a constant flow of recruits followed. The first crusaders usually arrived to fight during the spring and returned to their homes in the autumn. To ensure a permanent military presence, the Livonian Brothers of the Sword were founded in 1202. The founding by Bishop Albert of the market at Riga in 1201 attracted citizens from the Empire and economic prosperity ensued. At Albert's request, Pope Innocent III dedicated the Baltic countries to the Virgin Mary to popularize recruitment to his army and the name "Mary's Land" has survived up to modern times.”

December 10, 2010 10:25 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“In 1206 the crusaders subdued the Livonian stronghold in Turaida on the right bank of Gauja river, the ancient trading route to the Northwestern Rus. In order to gain control over the left bank of Gauja, the stone castle was built in Sigulda before 1210. By 1211 the Livonian province of Metsepole (now Limbaži district) and mixed Livonian-Latgallian inhabited county of Idumea (now Straupe) was converted to the Roman Catholic faith. The last battle against the Livonians was the siege of Satezele hillfort near to Sigulda in 1212. The Livonians, who had been paying tribute to the East Slavic Principality of Polotsk, at first considered the Germans as useful allies. The first prominent Livonian to be christened was their leader Caupo of Turaida. As the German grip tightened, the Livonians rebelled against the crusaders and the christened chief but the uprising was put down. Caupo of Turaida remained an ally of the crusaders until his death in the Battle of St. Matthew's Day in 1217.[5]

The German crusaders enlisted newly baptised Livonian warriors to participate in their campaigns against Latgallians and Selonians (1208–1209), Estonians (1208–1227) and never against Semigallians, Samogitians and Curonians (1219–1290).”

Anon claimed:

“there is no evidence that Christians are trying to control other peoples' belief by any other means than social interaction”

Wow, what a capacity for euphemism you have Anon.

Papal armies and bishops riding around Europe battling “heathens” until they give up and “willingly” convert to Christianity, or demonizing and dehumanizing Native Americans for their beliefs and lifestyle until it becomes socially acceptable for an entire country to systematically exterminate most of the “godless pagans” already inhabiting most of a continent. I’d hate to see what happens when Christians actually have to resort to “force” when “social interaction” is no longer sufficient.

“just like you try to do, cinco”

Um, I never dictated a Papal bull or announced a “crusade” against people who didn’t believe what I do. If the Catholic Church ever decides to vote me Pope however, you can be sure there will be some HUGE changes in store.

By the way, can you explain why you keep calling me the Spanish word for the number five?

“when you "force" to believe something, you don't have a society of converts

just a society of hypocrites”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a concise explanation of why our country with its “Christian heritage” is so screwed up.

December 10, 2010 10:26 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I have to ask, would you consider this view of forced conversions hypocritical? I certainly do:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

“Pope Innocent III, who denounced forced conversions pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless:

...does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling. ... [For] the grace of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined.[1]”

Anon claimed:

“Christianity is unique in that there is a greater tolerance for sinners, which is why today, tolerance for homosexuality is mainly a phenomena seen in societies with a Christian heritage”

Yeah Anon, those Buddhists, Janes, and Zoroastrians are really going after all my gay friends… good thing we have the “Christians” to protect us.

Anon claimed:

“Christianity has no history of "insisting on adherence"”

Whatever you do Anon, don’t use “The Google,” and type in “forced conversion to christianity.” It might just burst your naive little bubble.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

December 10, 2010 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

If Christians didn't want to force conversions, they wouldn't have Sunday School.

rrjr

December 10, 2010 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Just because YOU wouldn’t force someone to convert is irrelevant."

yes, it is relevant

I'm typical

"If you had a larger shred of history, you’d know that Christians conquered all sorts of “heathen” lands and forced them to convert to Christianity."

cynco, before the invention of the printing press, many people didn't have access to scripture so the powerful made up their own version

not really fair to call that Christianity

I "have" a larger shred of history than the average bear

"Wow, what a capacity for euphemism you have Anon.

Papal armies and bishops riding around Europe battling “heathens” until they give up and “willingly” convert to Christianity,"

just because a Christian country goes to war doesn't mean the purpose is conversion

furthermore, the issue is still whether "Christianity" is authentic without access to scripture

the Christianity you attack today stresses the study of scripture

since we really can't ever be said to truly understand the complete situation of the past, why don't we talk about now

you have enough confusion about that

"or demonizing and dehumanizing Native Americans for their beliefs and lifestyle"

preaching against paganism is not the same as "force"

"Um, I never dictated a Papal bull or announced a “crusade” against people who didn’t believe what I do. If the Catholic Church ever decides to vote me Pope however, you can be sure there will be some HUGE changes in store"

I believe I said you argue for your point in the same way Christians argue for theirs

good to know you're actually seeking papal infallibility status

btw, just so you know, since Catholicism seems to account for much of your animus, I'm not a Catholic,

"By the way, can you explain why you keep calling me the Spanish word for the number five?"

no, I can't tell you that

it's part of a vast right-wing conspiracy and a conspiracy explained is no longer a conspiracy

"I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a concise explanation of why our country with its “Christian heritage” is so screwed up"

our country is not that screwed up

it's actually a very nice place

if you don't like it, you're free to leave

there are tons of immigrants who would love to take your place

if you want to go someplace very different from us, try Saudi Arabia or North Korea

"those Buddhists, Janes, and Zoroastrians are really going after all my gay friends… good thing we have the “Christians” to protect us"

I think you'll find the only ones "going after" homosexuals are rednecks who have no history of involvement with any religion

"Whatever you do Anon, don’t use “The Google,” and type in “forced conversion to christianity.” It might just burst your naive little bubble."

interesting thought process

I just typed homosexual child abuse and got half a million hits

"Have a nice day"

go skinny-dip in a lava floe

"If Christians didn't want to force conversions, they wouldn't have Sunday School"

I think Robert is, once again, scoring a touchdown in the wrong end zone

you just revealed what you mean by "force"

please, please explain to us how a Sunday school class "forces" someone to convert

December 11, 2010 2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous question: "so, Christianity caused the fall of the Roman empire? do you guys think it will do the same to America?"

Answer: YES

December 16, 2010 9:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home