>[...] one of the things I find
>interesting about the flagellents, the Brethern, and the Franciscans
>(and their brothers the Fratricelli) was the way that their creeds
>slopped over into political action, the desire for a New Jerusalem made
>flesh that bust into startlingly effective (and bloody) revolution in a
>couple of pplaces (Munster and Bohemia come to mind).
The groups you mention weren't really effective politically as Bohemia was the (rather mainstream) Hussites while Muenster was caused by fringe Anabaptists. In any case, the medieval social order also based its legitimacy upon the Kingdom of God (which is something that I've tried to reflect in the Malkioni description of their social order in the glorantha introduction). IMO the effectiveness of the revolution was not so much due to their desire for a New Jerusalem but because the legitimacy (and hence authority) of the existing order had been called into question.
>I see this in Ralios but not necessarily in the rest of the West
>(athough the Kingdom of War is a nasty as Munster, which makes
>Pol Pot's Cambodia look restrained).
The main religious movement in Ralios (well Safelster) isn't really marked by a desire for a New Jerusalem but more of a renaissance looking back to the Autarchy/Classical Age.
> >>the Lollards....
> >Not really so bizarre but protestants ahead of their time.
>Bizarre enough for the West I'd think: a vernacular Abiding Book?
>Think of the fuss....
The fuss of a vernacular language really only impacts if it's translated into a totally different language (like English, Czech or German) rather than a vulgar offshoot. Given that western nations (Jonatela and Heortland being the best known exceptions) largely speak derivative forms of the first western tongue, it won't really have the desired impact. Hus and Wyclif got into hot water over matters other than vernacular translations - Hus attacked the Clergy over their morals while Wyclif stated that that they shouldn't own property. AFAIK vernacular translations acquired a bad stigma because they were associated with these other beliefs.
Another point to consider is the potential impact. It's all very well to posit RW religious controversies onto the west but without any potential impact other than "you could die for merely saying X in place Y". This encourages PC-types to sophistry and/or cynicism about the whole affair ("We are in favour of vernacular translations in place A and against it in place B") which IMO is a bad thing. In most RW cases X in fact had far-reaching social implications.
For example, arguments over the precise nature of the humanity and the divinity of Christ were fueled by the consequences of that proposition. If you asserted that Christ was human, then the way to salvation was through living an ethical life while if Christ was divine, then salvation lay through ritual.
So instead of saying "Sect Y is persecuted because it believes in arcane doctrine X", it is more worthwhile IMO to flesh out the material consequences of that action. The Borists for example are more feared than the Galvosti even though the latter have more liberal tapping strictures because the consequences of Boristi dogma is much worse from an orthodox viewpoint than Galvostism.
Powered by hypermail