Was the de-Christianization of France a bad idea?
>>929891
A necessary step.
>>929929
But it only lasted like a year.
>>929941
Think about the effect of it. A ton of important thinking was gated off by the religion. France's de-Christianization was a spark that resounded through all of Europe, it's part of what makes our modern world possible. It also got rid of a monarchy was was horribly degenerate and paved the way for Napeloinic France was revitalized culture.
Lol at secular France today
They let in muslims who are blowing up shit and raping people
>destruction of churches that provided food and medical care for their communities
>banning nuns and priests who took care of the poor in their communities
>destroying historical objects because they were in a church
>desecrating tombs because they were in a church
>executing priests and nuns for refusing to stop obeying their religious principles that require them to dedicate their lives to serving God and the poor
what could go wrong
>However, in the Renaissance there was a brilliant, uncanny reawakening of the classical ideal, of the noble method of valuing everything: Rome itself woke up, as though from suspended animation, under the pressure of the new, Judaic Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called 'Church': but Judea triumphed again at once, thanks to that basically proletarian (German and English) ressentiment-movement which people called the reformation, including its inevitable consequence, the restoration of the church, - as well as the restoration of the ancient, tomb-like silence of classical Rome. In an even more decisive and profound sense than then, Judea once again triumphed over the classical ideal with the French Revolution: the last political nobility in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, collapsed under the ressentiment-instincts of the rabble, - the world had never heard greater rejoicing and more uproarious enthusiasm!
>True, the most dreadful and unexpected thing happened in the middle: the ancient ideal itself appeared bodily and with unheard-of splendour before the eye and conscience of mankind, and once again, stronger, simpler and more penetrating than ever, in answer to the old, mendacious ressentiment slogan of priority for the majority, of man's will to baseness, abasement, levelling, decline and decay, there rang out the terrible and enchanting counter-slogan: priority for the few. Like a last signpost to the other path, Napoleon appeared as a man more unique and late-born for his times than ever a man had been before, and in him, the problem of the noble ideal itself was made flesh - just think what a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of Unmensch (brute) and Ubermensch (overman) ...
>>929891 (OP)
Bad in the modes, good in the results, has cleaned some big sacks of decadence in in the french catholic establishment.
As the Comte de Montlosier has said, the 7 January 1791, to the Constituent regarding the refractory bishops and the confiscation of church properties: ‘If you took away their cross of gold, they would still possess a cross of wood, and it is a cross of wood that saved the world.’
helped the church and the european society
this is all true btw >>930078 and shows how staring the Lights make the people blind
>>930078
The French revolution was inabled presciously because no one was helping the poor. They were literally starving. Than the third estate was shut out, partially by the priests, and the poor really got the message that the church is their enemy.
Where was the supposed "help for the poor" the church offered when there was a bread shortage and people were unable to afford even the most basic food?
>>930213
Don't even bother, he's probably one of those "church dindu nuffin" people.
>>930213
>The French revolution was inabled presciously because no one was helping the poor.
The French Revolution was enabled because of the massive debt incurred by France fighting in the American Revolution, and the inability of the king to reconcile his plans for financial reform with that of his ministers and the recalled Parlement of Paris. During periods of crisis, the king gave heavily (both in food and firewood) to alleviate what he could. Some nobles, particularly those who lived on their estates and not at court, also did much in helping the poor. If you know of Madame du Barry, a man who lived in a town that she inhabited for several years wrote that when she was there "the poor did not suffer, or rather, there were no poor" because of her charity. It's not that "no one was helping the poor," it was that the essential financial reforms that would have helped alleviate the taxes on the poor, and reduce the risk of problems like the spikes in bread prices, were tangled up in political bullshit.
>Where was the supposed "help for the poor" the church offered when there was a bread shortage and people were unable to afford even the most basic food?
Just because the churches didn't have the power to help everyone doesn't mean they helped no one.
>>930223
/his/ rules
>History can be examined from many different conflicting viewpoints; please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
>people think that a pillar of reaction and monarchism like the church didn't deserve everything it got
>>930230
The inescapable fact is that the peasantry saw that the upper classes were obviously not starving as they were and this sent them into a murderous rage.
>>930213
Read Taine, shut the fuck up.
>>930213
The French Revolution was sparked by the Middle Class not the Poor
>>930213
>The French revolution was inabled presciously because no one was helping the poor.
Not him but, remember that those poor were starving cause louis XVI hasn't started a war but instead has convened the States-General.
Instead the Emperor killed them all (with most of others european citizens) in his insane campaigns.
>Than the third estate was shut out, partially by the priests
I remind you that half of the second state was at the tennis court oath
>>930251
>The inescapable fact is that the peasantry saw that the upper classes were obviously not starving as they were and this sent them into a murderous rage.
What do you mean? The initial acts of the 1789 revolution were not aimed at killing the aristocracy, or even getting rid of the king. That didn't come into play until after 1791, and wasn't put into effect until 1792. The acts of violence in 1789 were aimed at 1) military and governmental figures (guards who got in their way, head of the Bastille, etc) 2) courtiers whom they believed were corrupting the king and sucking the money from the nation, though that violence didn't extend into action, just threats which spurred some of those courtiers into leaving the country.
The complaints submitted by the people for presentation at the Estates General were largely about the aforementioned financial and political problems, which are what exacerbated the food shortages whose roots were in the poor harvest of the previous year, and which were the root cause of the inequality in France. Even after the fall of the Bastille, when you look at the records of people who witnessed or participated in the mob peasant violence, it's not food which is the reoccurring theme but a sense of wanting political changes, and wanting to feel like the king--and thus the government--were accessible to them instead of being in the lofty Versailles. You have mobs of peasant women who were visibly excited that the queen could address them on the street from her own window, and that she promised to pay off their debts (which backfired but that's another story). And so on, with similar stories.
But even so, none of that has to do with the fact that churches did service for the poor.
