Main > The Round Table

Religion and Chivalry

<< < (5/7) > >>

Dragonlover:
Very well said Sir Brian.
i would concur most definitely. :)

Todd Sullivan:
Better late than never (slap his visor down and hides behind his horse).

I believe the Subject is: Religion and Chivalry and not: Christianity and Chivalry  :-*

For myself; although the medieval knight has it's history tied to the church, I myself am 50/50 about religion and chivalry tied to each other.  To me chivalry is many things; gallantry to ladies, doing the right thing, obeying the law to ones best ability, being a benefit to society and not a menace, a shoulder to cry on, an open ear, community involvment, protection of children, unjudgemental eyes, and standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves.

In doing the above mentioned things, religion has no part for me, however, I am a pagan, and when I kneel before a bout, say at a Selohaar Gathering or at my home, than religion does play a part.

If someone is to say "For me, as a modern knight, holding true and reviving chivalric value, YES my religion has much to do with it"  than I say "well done and I understand" and support that person's view.  When it comes to religion and strong beliefs a man/women can and will take a strong stance for thier belief, up and too the point of strapping a bomb to thier chest, while I would not go to that extreme I will step into harms way to defend a women who gets slapped across the face by a drunk boyfriend and religion will have no part.

Hope I'm not confusing?

Cheers,

Todd

Sir Griff:
I think chivalry was also very much about having an excuse to just up and challenge someone to fight to the death in the name of chivalry, for any perceived insult. Back in the Middle Ages, conflicts could ignite from something like a mild insult or perceived slight, and each side would feel justified to pursue conflict in order to be "chivalrous" and maintain their honour.

Chivalry also had some pretty warped ideals that are pretty hard for me to understand. For example, if a knight caught two lovers eloping without the consent of their parents, he would let them go but not without taking all their money first (supposedly so they wouldn't have any outside help on their escape and prove that their love was strong) then going to the pub and buying his friends drinks.

That seems very odd to me.

Justin:
I personally don't think that religion is a necessity for chivalry. To be chivalrous is a choice. A person should have a desire to be chivalrous of their own accord, not solely because they are bound by a higher power. Thats just my opinion though.

Joshua Santana:
I agree this is an interesting thread.  Allow me to take a different spin on this subject.

Historically, Chivalry has been associated with the Christian Church and its values pertaining to the elite warrior (best book on the subject in my opinion is Richard Kreuper's Holy Warriors).

From the viewpoint of Jewish Chivalry, religion plays the part of the balance between the Two Services (Avodat Hashem Service to the Eternal and Avodat Ben Adam Service to one's fellow.  Religion touches both and Jewish Chivalry is focused on both of them in ideal and application. 

In addition, Jewish Chivalry never sees a separation between the ideal and the faith (Judaism in this case).  An example of this can be found in Pirkei Avot or Ethics of the Fathers with statements such as "Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of a reward; instead be like servants who serve their master not for the sake of a reward." "Who is wise?  He who learns from every person."  "Who is strong?  He who subdues his personal inclination."  "Who is honored?  He who honors others."  (Translation:  Selflessness go along way.  Wisdom and learning doesn't end with a university diploma.  Inner Moral Strength counts.  Honoring others forms a basis for personal Honor).

In a way, religion helps to form the moral standard which is the influence for one's Chivalric conduct.  While the argument of no need for religion to be chivalrous can be seen as valid from a etiquette or conduct based perspective.  I see the picture as both sides of the discussion as two sides of one coin. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page