Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423
QuoteReplyTopic: Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival Posted: 11-Aug-2008 at 14:49
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
Originally posted by Polish rider
Check again. There is atheism in most of these areas.
There is atheism everywhere. Or maybe you meant that they are mostly atheistic, in which case you are plain wrong.
I think there is not much diference between the influence Catholicism and Protestantism have had in social and economical respect. Both lead to well organized society and wealth, but in religious plan these two form of Christianism lead finaly to atheism:
Or maybe you meant that they are mostly atheistic, in which case you are plain wrong.
Yes, I meant that they are mostly atheistic. And I am quite sure I am right . Churches are empty in almost whole Europe. This is the fact. People might be registered as Catholics or Protestants but in fact most of them don't care about religion. Europe is a continent of atheists already.
Or maybe you meant that they are mostly atheistic, in which case you are plain wrong.
Yes, I meant that they are mostly atheistic. And I am quite sure I am right . Churches are empty in almost whole Europe. This is the fact. People might be registered as Catholics or Protestants but in fact most of them don't care about religion. Europe is a continent of atheists already.
There is a very very big difference between atheist and not going to church. People may not pray very often, but most are raised with the so called Christian values nonetheless, minus the actual believing in god part. Most people are still baptized and confirmed, and do have respect towards the church.
Western liberals always tell us that socialism/communism is a religion, and socialists are blinded by ideology, whereas liberalism is 'scientific', 'rational', 'logical', and they are not ideological. In this thread we clearly see how empty their propaganda is, and yet how completely it is swallowed by some ex-Warsaw pacters.
The reason I brought up the performances of Bulgaria and its neighbours was to wash away the mindless propaganda lies vomited into this thread (that Bulgaria was backward because of communism, that is was rich before the world war, that it would be as rich as western european countries if it were capitalist, etc etc ad nauseam). It was not my intention to claim that the stalinist economic system was superior to the capitalist (which capitalist system btw US? German? Japanese?) ones. I haven't written that the communist system is superior to the capitalist one in economic performance under all conditions. In fact, I don't think the Stalinist economic system is suitable for an advanced country. For an undeveloped country, however, that's a different story.
Unfortunately, this forum is full of people who think capitalist systems are always superior to socialist ones, because they are blinded by ideology. In fact this is a general problem of the Western world and its dependencies, and they are paying for it right now, with the oil crises, credit crunches and imperial misadventures.
As to the discussion with Weber, it is obvious from history that religion has next to zero effect on economic performance. Otherwise I guess before Christ, Egyptian panteon caused the Egyptians to be rich (while the Jews were poor, but became rich later), later the Romans worshipping Jupiter made them rich, and later Hinduism and Islam were rich while Christians were dirt poor (who became rich later), and of course Confucianism makes everyone rich until about its expiry date in 17 hundreds, sometime in 19th century Shinto and Buddhism mix suddenly became very productive (it was crap before) as Islam, Hinduism and Confucianism lost their economic power, today atheism is doing good ect ... In fact none of these changes in economic performance are due to religion. I can't believe anyone believes this retarded idealist BS.
Max Weber was proved to be a dickhead as you can see from the following map in which are represented the regions of Europe and their GDP per head in 2004. Note as the majority of green regions (and especially dark green) are catholic and not protestant ones.
Are you kidding? The only Protestant regions which aren't green is Estonia and Latvia, which happened to have the bad fortune of being occupied by the Soviet Union, and East Germany, which had a similar faith. Even then, Estonia and Latvia have had the most tremendous growth (highest in the world, in fact) the past years and will soon be on Scandinavian standards.
And for whatever it's worth, 20 of the 35 dark green areas are Protestant. Of the red areas, roughly 40 are Catholic, 25 Orthodox but only 2 Protestant.
Guys why don't you just stay on topic?! What does all that communism propaganda, protestants and GDP have to do with "Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival"?
What are you talking about? Anyone but a colourblind can see that I'm right (put a +-2 on the Catholic and Orthodox numbers, the borders are unclear and doesn't follow any administrative or similar borders).
Well the Ottomans encouraged Orthodox "nationalism" early on in order to unify their majority Orthodox state against their enemy majority catholic state. I mean they didn't want all the christians to gang up against them.
So, for Christian unity the Ottomans were a bad thing, but for keeping the orthodox separate and distinct they did the best they could.
That is the point. The ottoman state was the protector of the orthodox patriarch. May be the ottomans are the major reason for the less advancement in the balkans but they helped orthodox people to preserve their identity
You need to get your facts straits, Serbia and Montenegro was under full autonomy since the 1820s. The only vestiges of Ottoman rule in Romania was a couple of mosques here and there, some garissons and settlers all of them were limited to a certain part of the country. Only Bosnia and Bulgaria were under direct rule and all this ended after 1877, almost 130 years ago. After that oil was discovered in large quantities in Bulgatria and Romania and it was squandered all over the place. Korea on the other hand only got independence from Japan in 1945 and throughout the occupation the Japanese did things worse than even the French did in Algeria and that rule was the standard for brutality. Look now how they are and how is Romania and bulgaria. And if you are going to play the communism card look where China was 17 years ago and where it is now.
Al-Jassas
Squandared in that little thing called World War 2...
First off the Balkans isn't some backward village forest where people live in mud huts. We don't need 15 cents a day to feed our children. Secondly the Ottoman Turks did have a bad influence on the Balkan nations and are in large part the reason for the hardships there. Thirdly, we must also remember the effect of communism and the explotation of these nations by the USSR. So all of those are factors.
Wake up Leo,The Balkan states have been independent for nearly 200 years and got no where. Korea in the 1950s was in a worse shape than even todays zimbabwe and yet look where they are now. Don't put everything on the Turks.
Al-Jassas
You're the obe,who should wake up and read some history - in 1939 Bulgaria was the number six most developed economy in Europe.Rusevelt for example called Bulgaria "an economical marvel".It was communism that made balkan and all eastern-european countries poor and undeveloped.
And Ottoman rule brought not simply economical but CULTURAL backwardness,because people under Ottoman rule didn't live through their own Renaissans,Enlightment age and other periods in European history...They were cut off of the christian world,not being able to produce their own great artists,writers,politicians and scientists (at least not as much as other christian countries).
I think this is non sense. For example the first reactor plane was invented in the Balkans (by a Romanian Henri Coanda). Not bad for not having the "enlightment age" right? I'm not an expert on Bulgaria but Romania was known as the France of the East. We had our artists like Brancu, poets like Eminescu etc etc. So I don't think the Turks had much of a hand in making is culturally backward. We must also keep in mind that we in the Balkans didn't take part in the imperial explotation of others such as the english, french, spanish, germans, dutch etc did all over the world.
I do not see Europeans as a natural cultural group. The Mediterranean has much more in common on all sides of that sea than the lass mass named Europe. The term should be political and nothing deeper.
Yes. It makes more historical sense to speak of 'Mediterranean' as opposed to 'Europe'. Things start to get more complicated after the expansions of Christianity, Islam, coming of the Turks and expansion of the West, and today one may argue otherwise and not look silly, but generally, you are right.
I am one of the few Greeks, at least in the diaspora, that prefers not to be pigeon holed 'Western'. We took that part on, in opposition to our Muslim masters during the Greek revolution. Ironically the renaissance came back in some form from the West and the old antiquities was revived as a source of identity building. The link is there but the Christian-Roman part was much more important. By that time the whole West had (argubaly) adopted the greco roman history as its own. Its the other way around. hmmff
Yes, as I wrote there were two schools in Greek thinking in the 18th century. They both believed that the Greek culture and influence was on the rise, and the paleo- imperialists (as Stefanos Yerasimos calls them) believed and they could take over the Ottoman Empire in time. When the Greek rebellion came, it was not just in Morea. There was unrest in Istanbul and other Black Sea towns as well, because of the paleo-imperialists!
Why did they believe that their culture was on the rise? In the beginning of the 16th century, after Mehmed the Conqueror secured the Black Sea for the Ottoman Empire, the trade there was dominated by Muslim traders, and according to Ottoman tax records Anatolia (with the exception of Trebizond) was 92% Muslim. But in the 18th century things were very different. Greeks were in contact with the West, and were stimulated culturally (what Leonidas wrote about 'renaissance coming back'). They had a stronger presence in trade, so were richer. They were ruling over the Romanian principalities as Ottoman officials, and all Orthodox in the Balkans were united under the Patriarchate. Bulgarian culture was weak, it was only resurrected later by the Russians as an imperial project to expand into the Balkans and clear a way to a warm water port. Trader class all over the Black Sea were being Hellenised, Romanians were speaking Greek at home... Greece itself was one of the richest areas in the whole of Ottoman Empire. By the 20th century, thanks to the ties with the Western powers who reduced the Ottoman Empire to a semi-colony, the Greeks dominated the trade in many fields, and the population of Christians in Anatolia has risen to about 20 percent, mainly because the Christians were exempt from military service while the Muslims were decimated in the endless Ottoman wars...
Greek paleo-imperialists looked at this situation and dreamt of reviving the Roman Empire, through co-existance with the declining Turks. The neo-imperialists however, were influenced by the Western idea of nationalism, and wanted their own state ASAP. They were in tune with the Western romantics, who gave the Greeks the role of their glorious ancestors, while denying their true heritage (they called the Balkans 'near east', never considered 'Byzantium' as Rome, or Western).
In the end, the neo-imperialists, who had the Western (and Russian) support, and who were more realistic in a way, won. That way Greeks become westernised before the others in the Balkans, and benefitted from it before the others did. Usually doing something before everyone else tries it brings more benefits. And of course the West was more willing to consider them one of their own compared to others.
In the end, this is history and cultures change. Oguz Turks were 'westernised' twice! First time when they became Muslim, and again in the 20th century. I would not have minded westernisation if it did not involve being subjected to western imperialism.
My take on the topic; The Ottomans did protect the Holy Roman Orthodox church, it was a symbiotic relationship. Its interesting to note the Church only highlights the good bits; the preservation of culture, the 'secret schools', certain Papas in the struggle. I am a little cynical of that type of memory. Individuals for sure, but the Church as a institution was a part of the Ottoman power structure, even if as a hostage.
Exactly. The Patriarchate was a crucial part of the Ottoman 'power structure'.
However, there would of been no room for this under Latin rule. They were no better, kinder or tolerant of the Orthodox faithful and had every reason to see us proselytized over time. Why? The Holy Roman Orthodox Church is also The Catholic church with strong claims over four out of the original five in the pentarchy. This is a powerful claim (agree with it or not) that cant be imitated or raised by a Protestant type church. While it exist the Latin church will always have that issue of apolistic lineage.
Indeed. The main problem with the Catholics is the same as between the Catholics and Protestants or the Romans and the Arians who massacared each other, church rivalry. The Church is like a state, when it is powerful it does not like sharing its power with another Church. Islam has no church (although the Ottomans invented 'mufti's for cities copying the Orthodox system, so that today Turkey has the state department of religious affairs, and even Australia has muftis) and has rules for co-existence with Christians (because Islam was invented after Christianity), so the situation is different.
Just a comment i want to make. Some things you say I agree others I don't, but your comment that in Romania they spoke Greek at home...i strongly doubt it. This would be the first time I heard such a suggestion. Perhaps Greek was studied but you are making it sound as if it was a first language in Romania...which as far as I know it wasn't.
The worst in the list are Albania and Kossovo, guess why?
Yes, the sole with a muslim majority ...
First of all,where do you base your opinion that Albania has a muslim majority?There has never been a religios statistic in Albania.Second,the most backward regions in Albania,as a matter of coincidence of course, happen to be Mirdita region,and Malesia,both Roman Catholic in Religion,and never in history under direct Ottoman Rule.
And how can Religion be a factor in backwardness when it does not play a role in politics,cultural,or social aspects of a society?
So,your comments,and all coments sugesting somehow that religion or Turkish rule is the cause of backwardness,might sound good in the ears of few Balkan kids,who forget that Orthodoxy is the most extreme religion and by far the most dangerous of all, some paranoied Italian who has made clear racist comments,and others like that,but has no credible intelectual value whatsoever,in fact even facts,as i sugested dismiss this stupid claim.
About the standing of levels of Coruption,the Albanian prime-minister said that is all a matter of perceptions,i happen to agree with him this time.Amnesty does not take into acount many things and takes into acount many other things it wants to.For example i dont think that Bulgaria or Rumania should have a better standing in coruption levels then Albania.I have seen that coruption in those acountries is the same or worse then in Albania.
And lets not even talk about life standarts,of which i am sure Albanians have one of the highest in eastern Europe,and for sure higher then other balcan countries,simply because Albanians have immigrated masively before other eastern Europian countries..Many wont agree with me on this,but thats not important.
Oh my God i just got home some hours ago, please tell me as i read this thread that i will have the pleasure of seeing someone else picking up these non sense statments typical of heroi. Orthodoxy the most extreme and dangerous by far? Unbacked racist backed comment no one here will agree with except perhaps those suffering from the same dellusion you suffer from.
Unfortunately, this forum is full of people who think capitalist systems are always superior to socialist ones, because they are blinded by ideology.
Always or not, ask an average Pole which system is better, he will say you from his experience that it is capitalism. After 40 years of communism in Poland, an average Pole earned $30 per month. After 20 years of capitalism, an average Pole earns $1500 per month. And wages of the Poles still are increasing 10-12% per year.
Well the Ottomans encouraged Orthodox "nationalism" early on in order to unify their majority Orthodox state against their enemy majority catholic state. I mean they didn't want all the christians to gang up against them.
So, for Christian unity the Ottomans were a bad thing, but for keeping the orthodox separate and distinct they did the best they could.
That is the point. The ottoman state was the protector of the orthodox patriarch. May be the ottomans are the major reason for the less advancement in the balkans but they helped orthodox people to preserve their identity
Protector... more like hostage.
hostage still protects. better than destroy or convert. We are comparing with Catholics here
I think when discussing the Ottomans it is important to understand that we are talking about a state that lasted 600 years. In different time periods and in different geographical locations it behaved differently, so much so that any broad generalisation about them is likely to be wrong.
Another common mistake is mistaking propaganda and cause. Some people still do this mistake when they believe US invaded Iraq to bring them democracy. How does this apply to the OE? In most cases Islam does not determine their actions, but justifies them. Unlike modern anthropologists, Western orientalists make the fundamental error of relying on the texts to understand a society rather than actually looking at what they do.
The status of the non-muslim population was regulated according the reglamentations of the so called "Pact between caliph Oman and the jews of Jerusalem". This document gave the legal right to Sultan Mehmed to nominate all of the patriachs and to guarаntee the existance of the Ortodox church.
Not really. Ottoman laws regarding non-muslims were not directly based on any real or fictitious Arab documents, with possible exception of Quran in some cases. Mehmed the Conqueror called himself 'Caesar of the Romans', therefore he had all the right (and duty) to nominate the patriarchs and guarantee the existence of the Eucumenical Church, regardless of what Caliph Omar did or did not do.
Here is a list of some of the more important/enormous taxes: "peshkesh"(gift) - tribute in gold, paid by all new patriachs personally to the sultan; "haradz" - tribute in gold paid each year by the patriarchate(the tax is introduced in 1474). We also have a bunch of curious taxes such as: a tax for the ascending of the new sultan, а tax for the circumcision of the sultan's sons, taxes for victories, taxes for the army, for the viziers and the janissaries etc.
This is misleading. Religious clergy were part of the Askeri class, which did not pay normal taxes. Only the Reaya class regardless of religion paid taxes. Also the Church was not always poor. 'The lack of government funding' is not really an issue as the Church was given autonomy in ruling the Christians.
All the non-muslim christian populations had to pay "ispenche" - 25 akches, and aslo the mass tax "djizie". In the 15th century those both taxes combined estimated to 2 gold coins(7.14gr. of gold) per family.
Wrong. Only reaya class (peasants, regardless of religion) paid taxes. There were many non-muslims who were not reaya class, including military class nobles (yes they existed all the way into 16th century) and church clergy, and therefore did not pay any taxes, but rather collected them.
If you read the studies on Ottoman taxes (I did), you will see that Ottomans really taxed everything, down to grass... It's incredible. You also see that the amounts and types of taxes change in time and location. So that statements like 'christians paid more tax', or 'tax burden was heavy/light' are all wrong. You have to give time and location. For instance Ottoman taxes were lower than Stefan Dushan's taxes which most of the Balkan peasants paid, in the beginning. During periods of war the tax burden was heavy. Christians did pay extra taxes within a region, but there were whole regions in Muslim Anatolia that had higher taxes than the Balkan areas, because Ottomans did nor replace the local taxing regime when they conquered those areas.
For example in the year 1500 the christian population of Anatolia, according the the ottoman documents, was 894 432 households which equals 2.8 tons of gold every year, only by those two taxes.
I don't believe the number of households. Population of Anatolia is estimated to be 5-6 millions around that time and tax records show that it was up to 92% Muslim (excluding Pontus region). With Christians at most 10 percent and the 894 thousand households you mention, it means that at least 4.5 million Christians (average 5 people per household) lived in Anatolia, so the population of Anatolia must be 45 millions according to these numbers! I think you either multiplied the houshold numbers by 10 or it is the total for the whole Empire.
The orthodox church self-preserved itself in a way. Christianity survived the Ottoman rule thanks to it's local institutions - the monasteries. Еаch monastery was a center of religious and spiritual activities.
Christianity did not survive the Ottomans thanks to monasteries. Christians were not persecuted. The number of Christians in Anatolia rose from the 8-10 percent I mentioned above in the 16th century to 20% of the population in the beginning of the 20th century... And that had nothing to do with monasteries. It was mainly due to Christians being exempt from military duties and while the Anatolian Muslims died in endless Ottoman wars.
Of course the sultan was accepted as the grand sovereign. We both know his abusive attitude towards his own viziers, so whats left for the representitive of a non-muslim establishment such as the Patriach?
Which Sultan? There were many Sultans. Some treated their viziers badly, others respected them. The same for Patriarchs.
Just a comment i want to make. Some things you say I agree others I don't, but your comment that in Romania they spoke Greek at home...i strongly doubt it. This would be the first time I heard such a suggestion. Perhaps Greek was studied but you are making it sound as if it was a first language in Romania...which as far as I know it wasn't.
I was talking about the trader classes on the Black Sea coast. Not Romanian peasants. The information comes from Stefanos Yerasimos' articles in the French history journal Heredote, can't give the full reference now as I don't have it with me.
"Christianity did not survive the Ottomans thanks to monasteries. Christians were not persecuted. The number of Christians in Anatolia rose from the 8-10 percent I mentioned above in the 16th century to 20% of the population in the beginning of the 20th century... And that had nothing to do with monasteries. It was mainly due to Christians being exempt from military duties and while the Anatolian Muslims died in endless Ottoman wars. "
They couldn't have taller houses of ring their bells. I call that persecution.
But we turned that persecution into something beautiful.
"I was talking about the trader classes on the Black Sea coast. Not Romanian peasants. The information comes from Stefanos Yerasimos' articles in the French history journal Heredote, can't give the full reference now as I don't have it with me. "
The people along the black sea coast spoke greek since the times of the Dacians. No surprise there.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Muslims or Catholics for Orthodox survival
. Churches are empty in almost whole Europe. This is the fact. People might be registered as Catholics or Protestants but in fact most of them don't care about religion. Europe is a continent of atheists already.
