Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Fahran]

As one that leans more to libertarian that sympathizes with some traditionalist beliefs in the United States and generally the West, I'm anxious about the future of my society, plus I'm relatively younger I'm 27. The future of non-left society does look bleak and even violent and a physical threat sometimes. I fear that the war has already been won by the left (if only mainstream culture) and I should just resign that things will continue to get darker for my long life until I'm old and gone.

I know this is morbid and emotional.

The Left can only ever win so much. The minute they open a classic novel or listen to an opera or engage with anything even remotely from the past they concede a little bit to tradition and to the permanent things discussed by Russell Kirk and T. S. Eliot. There's something immutable in the human spirit that, while occasionally obscured, never disappears. Cultural conservatism will linger in perpetuity, even if political conservatism falls on hard times. Perhaps we can take lessons from our failings in the interval until conservative politics come back into fashion.

[Fahran]

While this is true, it does feel weird for a devout Jewish woman to come out and say this, since it implies you're un-Western by your own standards.

There's always been a foreignness in us, this sense that we're guests among the other nations. I can placate the disquiet of this conclusion a bit by reflecting on the Haskalah and the important contributions Jews have made to the West as a collection of societies. The West may be rooted in Christian ideas and themes, but we Jews have earned a place here and have been in dialogue with those ideas and themes even while remaining faithful to G-d and his mitzvot.

Oh, people of the world! People of the world! Think well on these things! Who within the realm, emperor or any other, can hope to live a day, or an hour, while rejecting the exalted and august mind of the Great Kami! How dreadful and awesome!

I should read Motoori Norinaga at some point.

[Salus Maior]

Then how did it survive for over 1,000 years when all other Classical Civilization collapsed? I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Byzantine Empire...Christianity, explicitly Orthodox Christianity is what held the Greek-speaking Christian Roman Empire together. As a descendant of that Empire, I can confirm that not only did Orthodox Christianity preserve the Classical Culture, but it preserved the Greek Culture and People during the long, dark days of the Ottoman Empire, when the Turks attempted to quash us (a period of roughly 400 years).

I'm not at all suggesting you should not be proud of your heritage. Greece is the foundation of everything "European".

If Christianity is bad, that doesn't automatically make everyone in history who is a Christian bad or not worthy of respect or interest. I'd even argue that people worshipping, say, the Virgin Mary, might essentially actually be honouring/worshipping something in the divine akin to a diluted version of the mother goddess, ie. the one known to others as Shakti, Afrodite, Venus, Freyja, Morrigan etc. However, while I can't speak for you, I'm not sure my own people would have a weaker identity or be less able to keep together if we still had Thor and Freyja around. Rather the opposite, I fear. Christianity and Islam are alike in the sense that they take away the indigenous roots of a people's spirituality and it becomes more like some sort of ideology. They are related. You did have iconoclasm after the Islamic onslaught, didn't you?

That kind of stuff shouldn't have to be necessary.

Nobody worships the Virgin Mary (well, maybe some cult does, but Christians don't).

And Christianity is indigenous to Europe and has been for 1000 years or more at least. As well as being indigenous elsewhere in places like Ethiopia.

Christianity is spiritual, what do you think prayer is? What is the Rosary? What is Monasticism? What are the Sacraments? Now, I get that you have some kind of bitterness towards Christianity or whatever, but you're really making some absurd statements to justify how "enlightened" and "spiritual" you are (in fact, here's a hot take: if you have to brag about that sort of thing or go out of your way to declare how terrible those other religions are, you're not even close to being either enlightened or deeply spiritual).

And yeah, I imagine Orthodox do consider that the Iconoclast controversy was unnecessary considering they are the successors of those persecuted by the Iconoclast faction and the Iconoclast Emperors.

[Hanafuridake]

While this is true, it does feel weird for a devout Jewish woman to come out and say this, since it implies you're un-Western by your own standards.

There's always been a foreignness in us, this sense that we're guests among the other nations. I can placate the disquiet of this conclusion a bit by reflecting on the Haskalah and the important contributions Jews have made to the West as a collection of societies. The West may be rooted in Christian ideas and themes, but we Jews have earned a place here and have been in dialogue with those ideas and themes even while remaining faithful to G-d and his mitzvot.

Well I suppose that makes sense, still it feels strange to me to identify with a civilization with parts you're locked off from. But that's probably a uniquely Jewish experience.

I should read Motoori Norinaga at some point.

I wouldn't recommend it because most of the translations are about philology, the vast majority of his canon remain untranslated in Japanese.

It's disappointing how much he devoted his time to bashing Confucianism and Buddhism, despite ironically reconverting to Amidism before death as a Pascal's Wager.

[Nea Byzantia]

Then how did it survive for over 1,000 years when all other Classical Civilization collapsed? I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Byzantine Empire...Christianity, explicitly Orthodox Christianity is what held the Greek-speaking Christian Roman Empire together. As a descendant of that Empire, I can confirm that not only did Orthodox Christianity preserve the Classical Culture, but it preserved the Greek Culture and People during the long, dark days of the Ottoman Empire, when the Turks attempted to quash us (a period of roughly 400 years).

I'm not at all suggesting you should not be proud of your heritage. Greece is the foundation of everything "European".

If Christianity is bad, that doesn't automatically make everyone in history who is a Christian bad or not worthy of respect or interest. I'd even argue that people worshipping, say, the Virgin Mary, might essentially actually be honouring/worshipping something in the divine akin to a diluted version of the mother goddess, ie. the one known to others as Shakti, Afrodite, Venus, Freyja, Morrigan etc. However, while I can't speak for you, I'm not sure my own people would have a weaker identity or be less able to keep together if we still had Thor and Freyja around. Rather the opposite, I fear. Christianity and Islam are alike in the sense that they take away the indigenous roots of a people's spirituality and it becomes more like some sort of ideology. They are related. You did have iconoclasm after the Islamic onslaught, didn't you?

That kind of stuff shouldn't have to be necessary.

The main issue is that the Catholics got to you instead of the Orthodox. The Rus and other Slavs who converted to Orthodoxy got to keep most of their culture and customs; albeit with a Christian tinge. The fact that Orthodox liturgies are usually done in the vernacular tongue of the nation it is in (the liturgical language of the Russians and other Slavs is Old Church Slavonic, as it was a millennium ago) helps a great deal in that respect.

The Catholics, on the other hand, forced Latin Language, Liturgics and Customs on all the "heathens" they evangelized to. This is because the Orthodox Church was more sure of itself, as the Christian East was still ruled by the Emperor in Constantinople. In the West, the Papacy began to assume both the normal Church functions as well as the political functions of the Emperor; to the Papal missionaries approached things with a more Imperialistic viewpoint, whereas the Orthodox missionaries did not. Even as late as the 18th century, the Russian missionaries to Alaska and the Aleutian Islands tried to integrate Orthodox Theology into the Native cultures as much as possible - to the point that there are Orthodox Totem Poles in that part of the World:



As for the Iconoclasm, yes it did happen (unfortunately). But it was brief (roughly a century long), and we condemned it as a Heresy. We joyfully commemorate the end of Iconoclasm, and the restoration of the holy images every Sunday of Orthodoxy (the first Sunday of Great Lent).

[Nea Byzantia]

I'm not at all suggesting you should not be proud of your heritage. Greece is the foundation of everything "European".

If Christianity is bad, that doesn't automatically make everyone in history who is a Christian bad or not worthy of respect or interest. I'd even argue that people worshipping, say, the Virgin Mary, might essentially actually be honouring/worshipping something in the divine akin to a diluted version of the mother goddess, ie. the one known to others as Shakti, Afrodite, Venus, Freyja, Morrigan etc. However, while I can't speak for you, I'm not sure my own people would have a weaker identity or be less able to keep together if we still had Thor and Freyja around. Rather the opposite, I fear. Christianity and Islam are alike in the sense that they take away the indigenous roots of a people's spirituality and it becomes more like some sort of ideology. They are related. You did have iconoclasm after the Islamic onslaught, didn't you?

That kind of stuff shouldn't have to be necessary.

Nobody worships the Virgin Mary (well, maybe some cult does, but Christians don't).

And Christianity is indigenous to Europe and has been for 1000 years or more at least. As well as being indigenous elsewhere in places like Ethiopia.

Christianity is spiritual, what do you think prayer is? What is the Rosary? What is Monasticism? What are the Sacraments? Now, I get that you have some kind of bitterness towards Christianity or whatever, but you're really making some absurd statements to justify how "enlightened" and "spiritual" you are (in fact, here's a hot take: if you have to brag about that sort of thing or go out of your way to declare how terrible those other religions are, you're not even close to being either enlightened or deeply spiritual).

And yeah, I imagine Orthodox do consider that the Iconoclast controversy was unnecessary considering they are the successors of those persecuted by the Iconoclast faction and the Iconoclast Emperors.

Also, he's right. Please don't take my insults to the Catholic Church personally, its just a difference of mindset. The thing to remember is that Orthodox and Catholic were the same Church until the Great Schism (1054 AD) officially.

[Sicaris]

I'm not at all suggesting you should not be proud of your heritage. Greece is the foundation of everything "European".

If Christianity is bad, that doesn't automatically make everyone in history who is a Christian bad or not worthy of respect or interest. I'd even argue that people worshipping, say, the Virgin Mary, might essentially actually be honouring/worshipping something in the divine akin to a diluted version of the mother goddess, ie. the one known to others as Shakti, Afrodite, Venus, Freyja, Morrigan etc. However, while I can't speak for you, I'm not sure my own people would have a weaker identity or be less able to keep together if we still had Thor and Freyja around. Rather the opposite, I fear. Christianity and Islam are alike in the sense that they take away the indigenous roots of a people's spirituality and it becomes more like some sort of ideology. They are related. You did have iconoclasm after the Islamic onslaught, didn't you?

That kind of stuff shouldn't have to be necessary.

The main issue is that the Catholics got to you instead of the Orthodox. The Rus and other Slavs who converted to Orthodoxy got to keep most of their culture and customs; albeit with a Christian tinge. The fact that Orthodox liturgies are usually done in the vernacular tongue of the nation it is in (the liturgical language of the Russians and other Slavs is Old Church Slavonic, as it was a millennium ago) helps a great deal in that respect.

The Catholics, on the other hand, forced Latin Language, Liturgics and Customs on all the "heathens" they evangelized to. This is because the Orthodox Church was more sure of itself, as the Christian East was still ruled by the Emperor in Constantinople. In the West, the Papacy began to assume both the normal Church functions as well as the political functions of the Emperor; to the Papal missionaries approached things with a more Imperialistic viewpoint, whereas the Orthodox missionaries did not. Even as late as the 18th century, the Russian missionaries to Alaska and the Aleutian Islands tried to integrate Orthodox Theology into the Native cultures as much as possible - to the point that there are Orthodox Totem Poles in that part of the World:



As for the Iconoclasm, yes it did happen (unfortunately). But it was brief (roughly a century long), and we condemned it as a Heresy. We joyfully commemorate the end of Iconoclasm, and the restoration of the holy images every Sunday of Orthodoxy (the first Sunday of Great Lent).

Neat totem pole.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

As one that leans more to libertarian that sympathizes with some traditionalist beliefs in the United States and generally the West, I'm anxious about the future of my society, plus I'm relatively younger I'm 27. The future of non-left society does look bleak and even violent and a physical threat sometimes. I fear that the war has already been won by the left (if only mainstream culture) and I should just resign that things will continue to get darker for my long life until I'm old and gone.

I know this is morbid and emotional.

You can still be a left libertarian, although personally I’d encourage becoming a social liberal.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

There's always been a foreignness in us, this sense that we're guests among the other nations. I can placate the disquiet of this conclusion a bit by reflecting on the Haskalah and the important contributions Jews have made to the West as a collection of societies. The West may be rooted in Christian ideas and themes, but we Jews have earned a place here and have been in dialogue with those ideas and themes even while remaining faithful to G-d and his mitzvot.

Well I suppose that makes sense, still it feels strange to me to identify with a civilization with parts you're locked off from. But that's probably a uniquely Jewish experience.

I should read Motoori Norinaga at some point.

I wouldn't recommend it because most of the translations are about philology, the vast majority of his canon remain untranslated in Japanese.

It's disappointing how much he devoted his time to bashing Confucianism and Buddhism, despite ironically reconverting to Amidism before death as a Pascal's Wager.

What parts of society are Jewish people locked off from?

[Sicaris]

As one that leans more to libertarian that sympathizes with some traditionalist beliefs in the United States and generally the West, I'm anxious about the future of my society, plus I'm relatively younger I'm 27. The future of non-left society does look bleak and even violent and a physical threat sometimes. I fear that the war has already been won by the left (if only mainstream culture) and I should just resign that things will continue to get darker for my long life until I'm old and gone.

I know this is morbid and emotional.

Believe me, they haven’t won anything. Europe is an example of how they’re losing ground.

[Salus Maior]

Also, he's right. Please don't take my insults to the Catholic Church personally, its just a difference of mindset. The thing to remember is that Orthodox and Catholic were the same Church until the Great Schism (1054 AD) officially.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me that much considering it's based so much in misconception rather than malice.

Catholics are a very diverse group, you can hardly say that Spanish Catholics are virtually the same as, say, Polish Catholics. Even if we were (emphasis on were, thanks to VII) united in a common liturgy.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Christianity causes social division through its totalitarian claims about other peoples eternal damnation.

Christianity actually appealed to slaves and other ostracized persons on the fringes of Roman/Hellenistic society. The old pagan religions, excepting cults dedicated to deities such as Dionysus and Isis, often served to reinforce class divisions and static hierarchies in a way that alienated the poor and downtrodden. There's a reason religions of salvation caught on and spread like wildfire amid social upheavals that the older national religions weren't adequately equipped to address.

It uproots people from their ancestors and native culture,

Christianity has become a cornerstone of Western civilization at the very least, and, as a rule, we draw more from the medieval world than a lot of people are willing to concede.

ruins peoples lives for no good reason, makes them docile, submissive and afraid, and spreads a black-and-white, streamlining mentality.

I think this misunderstands the complexities and nuances of monotheistic thought, jurisprudence, and theology in the context of Abrahamic religions.

The entire world view with a (if we are to believe the bible...) gruesomely violent dictator of the universe (who is above and not one with nature/creation and its laws) who rewards people with mundane stuff (often stolen from others) in exchange for being worshipped (this is actually rather the actions of a text book evil spirit or demon) and the idea of "salvation" through obedience to this supernatural tyrant is a pathway for being ignorant of the dignity of other living beings. In various ways. Some Christians, in line with the bible and some leading historical theologians, endorse beating up small children until don't think independently, which is "rebellion against God", for the sake of their salvation.

Deities demand an intrinsic respect. Do you believe that Jupiter, Amaterasu-no-mikoto, Ammon-Re, Inanna, or Odin behaved/behave in an altogether different manner? They demanded/demand obeisance even according to their own myths and stories. They could/do visit terrible justice on those who defy their moral precepts and divine wills.

Even classic psychopaths like the pastor who runs the infamous Hephzibah House in America (have to say the Catholic church used to have a point about freedom of religion being BS....) and used sadistic torture on vulnerable young women, are actually more in line with YWHW and the bible than with modern X-tians. And yes... the later is obviously a good thing, but as long as X-tianity is around there's always the risk that some folks will start practising a more literalist variant, especially in countries with "freedom of religion" for subversive cults and such. Just look at what's happened with Islam were they've went "back to the basics" what it was like when the Caliphate conquered and destroyed all those amazing ancient cultures by the sword.

I can't speak for Christians, but Judaism has a completely different view of G-d.

I would dispute the idea that Christianity is the cornerstone of the west. An important part of it? Maybe. But you can embrace western culture without embracing Christianity.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

As one that leans more to libertarian that sympathizes with some traditionalist beliefs in the United States and generally the West, I'm anxious about the future of my society, plus I'm relatively younger I'm 27. The future of non-left society does look bleak and even violent and a physical threat sometimes. I fear that the war has already been won by the left (if only mainstream culture) and I should just resign that things will continue to get darker for my long life until I'm old and gone.

I know this is morbid and emotional.

Believe me, they haven’t won anything. Europe is an example of how they’re losing ground.

Europe appears to be gravitating back towards the right by the looks of it, so the dichotomy is most certainly still there.

[Nea Byzantia]

Also, he's right. Please don't take my insults to the Catholic Church personally, its just a difference of mindset. The thing to remember is that Orthodox and Catholic were the same Church until the Great Schism (1054 AD) officially.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me that much considering it's based so much in misconception rather than malice.

Catholics are a very diverse group, you can hardly say that Spanish Catholics are virtually the same as, say, Polish Catholics. Even if we were (emphasis on were, thanks to VII) united in a common liturgy.

That is also true. I'm painting with very broad strokes, here, because I'm trying to make a point. I'll be the first to admit that. When people say they have a problem with "Christianity", its very vague. Which branch of Christianity are they referring to (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant)? And then within that, what group are they referring to? The point I was trying to make was that if Feylands' civilization (which I'm assuming is Norse, Germanic, or Celtic) had been reached by Orthodox missionaries as opposed to Catholic ones, their civilization would've developed differently. Of course those terms would've been anachronistic for the times, given that Catholicism and Orthodoxy were a single Church; so I suppose we could say "Eastern Church" as opposed to "Western Church".

I read recently that the Anglo-Saxon Church was not in favour of Papal Primacy (when the issue came up in 1054); and William the Conqueror invaded England with a Papal blessing, and the understanding that England was to be brought over to the "Catholic side". This is precisely what William did after seizing England in 1066, and quite a few Anglo-Saxons fled to Constantinople after the Norman takeover, and many even received positions in the Varangian Guard (the Emperor's personal bodyguards and elite troops. The Guard was comprised of primarily Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Rus contingents).

So ironically, the first Papal aggressions were not only against Europeans, but against fellow Christians. I have no problem with Catholics, btw...Just the Papacy.

[Fahran]

What parts of society are Jewish people locked off from?

We do not wholly embrace the worldview promoted by a lot of the Catholic and Protestant liturgical, theological, and philosophical works that laid the foundation for modern western culture and society. When I read Augustine of Hippo's "City of G-d", it's not the same as when a Christian or even an atheist interested in political theology and philosophy reads it. Because Judaism, as I've argued in the past, is not simply Christianity without Jesus. It's a distinct religion that arrives at wholly divergent conclusions about the world in many instances. Our observation of holidays falls in line with this as well to an extent.

I would dispute the idea that Christianity is the cornerstone of the west. An important part of it? Maybe. But you can embrace western culture without embracing Christianity.

Skipping Aquinas and Augustine will cut you out of a lot of the more conservative/traditional discourse. I glossed over Russell Kirk's "Ten Conservative Principles" last night, because apparently reading extensive passages on obscure pathogens wasn't enough for me, and immediately saw echoes of Augustine's concept of the two cities. A lot of secular philosophy traces its roots back to theology or to the church. Liberals tend to overlook how deeply entrenched they are in interacting with those ideas - because they don't come into things with a deep commitment to an alien religion.

[Salus Maior]

That is also true. I'm painting with very broad strokes, here, because I'm trying to make a point. I'll be the first to admit that. When people say they have a problem with "Christianity", its very vague. Which branch of Christianity are they referring to (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant)? And then within that, what group are they referring to? The point I was trying to make was that if Feylands' civilization (which I'm assuming is Norse, Germanic, or Celtic) had been reached by Orthodox missionaries as opposed to Catholic ones, their civilization would've developed differently. Of course those terms would've been anachronistic for the times, given that Catholicism and Orthodoxy were a single Church; so I suppose we could say "Eastern Church" as opposed to "Western Church".

I read recently that the Anglo-Saxon Church was not in favour of Papal Primacy (when the issue came up in 1054); and William the Conqueror invaded England with a Papal blessing, and the understanding that England was to be brought over to the "Catholic side". This is precisely what William did after seizing England in 1066, and quite a few Anglo-Saxons fled to Constantinople after the Norman takeover, and many even received positions in the Varangian Guard (the Emperor's personal bodyguards and elite troops. The Guard was comprised of primarily Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Rus contingents).

So ironically, the first Papal aggressions were not only against Europeans, but against fellow Christians. I have no problem with Catholics, btw...Just the Papacy.

It really wouldn't have made much of a difference. Even though Orthodoxy traditionally had their liturgy in the vernacular, they still used the same liturgy (The John Chrysostom Divine Liturgy, which is also used by Eastern Catholics), which is a Byzantine invention. The fact is, when a certain church sends missionaries out, those missionaries teach according to their rite and tradition, they don't bring Christianity to a certain culture and say "Here do with this what you see fit".

Also no, I know that Orthodoxy likes to paint a narrative that Britain was Orthodox or Orthodox-esque before the Normans came along (probably because they're interested in winning converts in the Isles), but that's not true. There were some dividing issues between the Roman Church and what we call the "Celtic" Church, but those issues were solved in an earlier council.

[Nea Byzantia]

That is also true. I'm painting with very broad strokes, here, because I'm trying to make a point. I'll be the first to admit that. When people say they have a problem with "Christianity", its very vague. Which branch of Christianity are they referring to (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant)? And then within that, what group are they referring to? The point I was trying to make was that if Feylands' civilization (which I'm assuming is Norse, Germanic, or Celtic) had been reached by Orthodox missionaries as opposed to Catholic ones, their civilization would've developed differently. Of course those terms would've been anachronistic for the times, given that Catholicism and Orthodoxy were a single Church; so I suppose we could say "Eastern Church" as opposed to "Western Church".

I read recently that the Anglo-Saxon Church was not in favour of Papal Primacy (when the issue came up in 1054); and William the Conqueror invaded England with a Papal blessing, and the understanding that England was to be brought over to the "Catholic side". This is precisely what William did after seizing England in 1066, and quite a few Anglo-Saxons fled to Constantinople after the Norman takeover, and many even received positions in the Varangian Guard (the Emperor's personal bodyguards and elite troops. The Guard was comprised of primarily Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Rus contingents).

So ironically, the first Papal aggressions were not only against Europeans, but against fellow Christians. I have no problem with Catholics, btw...Just the Papacy.

It really wouldn't have made much of a difference. Even though Orthodoxy traditionally had their liturgy in the vernacular, they still used the same liturgy (The John Chrysostom Divine Liturgy, which is also used by Eastern Catholics), which is a Byzantine invention. The fact is, when a certain church sends missionaries out, those missionaries teach according to their rite and tradition, they don't bring Christianity to a certain culture and say "Here do with this what you see fit".

Also no, I know that Orthodoxy likes to paint a narrative that Britain was Orthodox or Orthodox-esque before the Normans came along (probably because they're interested in winning converts in the Isles), but that's not true. There were some dividing issues between the Roman Church and what we call the "Celtic" Church, but those issues were solved in an earlier council.

Which Council was that?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Which Council was that?

The Jedi Council.

[Fahran]

The Jedi Council.

Lucas has an objectively simplistic view of Eastern Philosophy and Star Wars is overrated. :^)

[Nea Byzantia]

That is also true. I'm painting with very broad strokes, here, because I'm trying to make a point. I'll be the first to admit that. When people say they have a problem with "Christianity", its very vague. Which branch of Christianity are they referring to (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant)? And then within that, what group are they referring to? The point I was trying to make was that if Feylands' civilization (which I'm assuming is Norse, Germanic, or Celtic) had been reached by Orthodox missionaries as opposed to Catholic ones, their civilization would've developed differently. Of course those terms would've been anachronistic for the times, given that Catholicism and Orthodoxy were a single Church; so I suppose we could say "Eastern Church" as opposed to "Western Church".

I read recently that the Anglo-Saxon Church was not in favour of Papal Primacy (when the issue came up in 1054); and William the Conqueror invaded England with a Papal blessing, and the understanding that England was to be brought over to the "Catholic side". This is precisely what William did after seizing England in 1066, and quite a few Anglo-Saxons fled to Constantinople after the Norman takeover, and many even received positions in the Varangian Guard (the Emperor's personal bodyguards and elite troops. The Guard was comprised of primarily Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Rus contingents).

So ironically, the first Papal aggressions were not only against Europeans, but against fellow Christians. I have no problem with Catholics, btw...Just the Papacy.

It really wouldn't have made much of a difference. Even though Orthodoxy traditionally had their liturgy in the vernacular, they still used the same liturgy (The John Chrysostom Divine Liturgy, which is also used by Eastern Catholics), which is a Byzantine invention. The fact is, when a certain church sends missionaries out, those missionaries teach according to their rite and tradition, they don't bring Christianity to a certain culture and say "Here do with this what you see fit".

Also no, I know that Orthodoxy likes to paint a narrative that Britain was Orthodox or Orthodox-esque before the Normans came along (probably because they're interested in winning converts in the Isles), but that's not true. There were some dividing issues between the Roman Church and what we call the "Celtic" Church, but those issues were solved in an earlier council.

I disagree. The Orthodox World did not have Witch-Hunts, an Inquisition, or for that matter a "Reformation", so History would've been very different if England had remained Orthodox. Latin would not have been so widespread either, and each nation would've kept their vernacular Liturgies.

Yes, the Eastern Liturgies of Byzantium and the Slavic lands (the nations that remained Orthodox and resisted Catholicism) were based on the Byzantine rite liturgy of St-John Chrysostom; but the Celts and other Western peoples had their own distinct liturgical traditons (the Celtic Orthodox Church is a good example of this), which were swept away by the Roman Church's conquest of these regions.

However, even I must admit that the Papacy was not always so corrupt, so concerned with earthly power. This trend arguably began with the Carolingian era of the 9th century. Charlemagne wanted Rome to be the Imperial Church of his domains, and use it as a means of unifying the diverse peoples and tribes of Western Europe. The special status bestowed on Rome by Charlemagne began to go to its head, and the Papacy began to take upon itself airs-of-grandeur. The Pope in Rome was already viewed as "first in honor" a,ong the Hierarchs of the Church, as Primus-Inter-Pares (First Among Equals). But no, this wasn't enough for Rome. They needed to be Bishop of Bishops; they needed to be the so-called "Vicar of Christ". This reflected itself in the Photian Schism (867 AD) and the subsequent Great Schism (1054 AD). So tensions had been brewing for quite some time, by the time the Schism actually came.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

The Jedi Council.

Lucas has an objectively simplistic view of Eastern Philosophy and Star Wars is overrated. :^)

I mean, you’re not wrong, but I still find Star Wars fun nonetheless.

Also, the old EU is better than the Nu!Canon/Disney!Canon.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

All this talk about religion makes me want to talk about another religious mass murder.

Inquisition, Crusade, or Jihad this time? Killing 50+ million of your own people with an atheist government is boring, we got to get that it epic removal of heresy.

Sorry if the rest of this is going to be about the crusades, but we haven’t mentioned it enough.

DEUS VULT

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I mean, you’re not wrong, but I still find Star Wars fun nonetheless.

Also, the old EU is better than the Nu!Canon/Disney!Canon.

Exactly, stupid Disney got rid of the part where the Yuuzan Ving kill billions of people. I would’ve liked a movie about that.

[Fahran]

All this talk about religion makes me want to talk about another religious mass murder.

Inquisition, Crusade, or Jihad this time? Killing 50+ million of your own people with an atheist government is boring, we got to get that it epic removal of heresy.

Sorry if the rest of this is going to be about the crusades, but we haven’t mentioned it enough.

DEUS VULT

Shouting "DEUS VULT!!!" and hopping on your horse to take back the Holy Land is objectively cooler than burning nuns, gulaging priests, or having a Cult of the Supreme Being. Robespierre BTFO.

[Nea Byzantia]

All this talk about religion makes me want to talk about another religious mass murder.

Inquisition, Crusade, or Jihad this time? Killing 50+ million of your own people with an atheist government is boring, we got to get that it epic removal of heresy.

Sorry if the rest of this is going to be about the crusades, but we haven’t mentioned it enough.

DEUS VULT

Speaking of the Crusades...The Fourth Crusade (1204 AD) which ended with the Sack of Constantinople ended up bringing the Byzantine Empire to its knees. This was part of Western Christendom's plan to "bring the Orthodox into the fold"; what followed was the Frankokratia/Latinokratia, which subjected certain parts of Greece to Frankish or Latin rule. In certain cases this went on for centuries, even to the 18th and 19th centuries in certain cases! Sure, it wasn't the final death of the Byzantine Empire, as Constantinople was liberated by the Greeks in 1261 AD; but the Empire was permanently crippled, and this gave the Turks the opportunity to build up their power. The Rise of the Ottomans is directly linked to the Fourth Crusade and the subsequent Power Vacuum in Anatolia and the Balkans. Without the Crusaders; without Western meddling in the affairs of the Christian East , there would've been no Ottoman Empire.