An issue of fan loyalty, or complete ignorance?

[dlihcraw]

I was recently involved in a rather frightening debate on another thread. The discussion topic dealt with terrorism and US-led initiatives to prevent its growth in the poorer nations of the world. The person I was arguing against endorses the full use of force in such initiatives, showing a particular fondness for the pre-emptive strike. This person strongly believes that Islamic countries produce the majority of terrorists in the world. Perhaps ignorantly, but also maybe purposely, he or she insists upon the destruction of “Islamism”. What has not been realized, or perhaps purposely ignored, is that “Islamism” refers only to the fulfillment of the most rudimentary principles in Islam. However, as a result of September 11th, the term “Islamism” has taken on a negative connotation for those who are unfamiliar with it and the War on Terror. Islamism in a denotative sense is equivalent to patriotism, nationalism, communism, capitalism, Americanism, or humanitarianism. Strictly speaking, there is no inherent evil in the term. The War on Terror is against Islamic fundamentalism, not Islamism. The difference between the two concepts is immense, mistaking the two concepts as being equal can be disastrous. Similarly, Catholicism is radically different from Catholic fundamentalism. Either set of terms mentioned are not interchangeable, and should not be interchanged.

I support the War on Terror when put into context. Any suggestion that no initiative be taken against terrorists is ridiculous, but a clear and united understanding of who are the terrorists must first be established, and initiative could and should include combating poverty, disease and global inequalities, not cultural differences. The Americans condemn the Russians for suppressing Chechen rebels, but the Russians condemn Americans for suppressing Iraqi rebels. The War on Terror is as much about realizing universal objectives as it is about eliminating terrorism. The war in Afghanistan is considerably more justifiable because it was legally sanctioned by the United Nations. Security Council problems aside, no such agreement was made to legitimize the war in Iraq, not even in the General Assembly.

Realizing the need to fight terrorism in a unanimous and productive fashion, I want to ask Interferencers if personal statements advocating the murder of dissidents should be accepted on a U2 website? The message of “Sunday Bloody Sunday” alone makes apparent U2’s disapproval of violence as a solution to differences between cultures. Cooperation is essential! I want to know if it is acceptable for people to post opinions that are in obvious contradiction to the founding principles of this website, namely the music and thoughts of U2? Or, should such opinions be allowed, but with anticipation of great opposition? Or, are the personal beliefs of U2 irrelevant in such discussions?

In my opinion, we are all here because of an affection for the band, and so the band’s beliefs are also favoured.

 

[BVS]

Why are you bringing in arguments from other threads?

Personal attacks aren't allowed here.

And last but not least what does U2 have to do with it? We don't have to follow everything U2 says, believe it or not this is not a religion, sometimes our opinions may differ from a band we like.

If not, we all would have thought the mullet was cool back in the 80's.

 

[BAW]

are the personal beliefs of U2 irrelevant in such discussions?

Yes, they are irrelevant. I would like to think the majority of us can think for ourselves.

 

[dlihcraw]

Let me clarify. Any of the three mentioned possibilities exist. U2 can be irrelevant, they can be partially relevant or they can be entirely relevant. What I meant to say is that in my opinion their beliefs should be partially relevant, not entirely, not energetically, not unreasonably, but taken into consideration. It would be irresponsible for me to discuss Democrat issues in a Republican forum without mention of the Republican position. I brought the other thread into this conversation because it gave me the idea for this thread. Feel free to ignore my quick summarization of the original thread and answer only the question posed in this thread!

I am well aware everyone can think for themselves, I even reflected upon that ability myself!

 

[verte76]

We are all U2 fans, but we have very diverse viewpoints in religion and politics. Since U2 are a spiritual band it could be claimed that atheism is somehow inconsistent with being a U2 fan. But this isn't true; we do, in fact, have atheists here. I'm a practicing Catholic and Bono has said he's uncomfortable with organized churches. He's entitled to his views, in Ireland the churches have had something to do with their political problems in a way that they haven't in the U.S. where I live. Similarly U2 have leftist political views but we have plenty of conservatives here. There's nothing "inconsistent" with this. We're not a bunch of sheep, we have minds of our own, which is really what I think the U2 guys want us to have as opposed to any "blind loyalty".

 

[BVS]

Huge REM fan, don't buy into Micheal's athiesm.

Huge fan of many artist that speak very openly about their drug use but I don't believe in it.

Huge fan of Sinead O' Connor but I still like my hair.

FANS DON'T NEED TO SHARE THE SAME VIEWS!!!

I love my parents, more than I do U2, but don't agree with 90% of their politics, but you know what, that's OK.

 

[dlihcraw]

We are all U2 fans, but we have very diverse viewpoints in religion and politics. Since U2 are a spiritual band it could be claimed that atheism is somehow inconsistent with being a U2 fan. But this isn't true; we do, in fact, have atheists here. I'm a practicing Catholic and Bono has said he's uncomfortable with organized churches. He's entitled to his views, in Ireland the churches have had something to do with their political problems in a way that they haven't in the U.S. where I live. Similarly U2 have leftist political views but we have plenty of conservatives here. There's nothing "inconsistent" with this. We're not a bunch of sheep, we have minds of our own, which is really what I think the U2 guys want us to have as opposed to any "blind loyalty".

I think your point about atheism is entirely true. In many ways, a secular understanding of U2's music does not seem appropriate, but many people do interpret it that way! When I say U2 should be partially relevant to the discussions in this forum, I mean only in a directional sense. To say that, “She tastes like lemon because U2 said so,” is not a legitimate argument. U2 more or less have a flow over where our conversations begin and sometimes end. The AIDS crisis in Africa is brought to many of our attentions by Bono, and the ineffectiveness of violence in settling conflict is brought to many of our attentions by the band through “Sunday Bloody Sunday”, “Pride” and “The Hands That Built American” (download the Oscar performance). Once these topics have been brought to our attention, unlike sheep, we are free to roam across them.

 

[STING2]

I think your point about atheism is entirely true. In many ways, a secular understanding of U2's music does not seem appropriate, but many people do interpret it that way! When I say U2 should be partially relevant to the discussions in this forum, I mean only in a directional sense. To say that, “She tastes like lemon because U2 said so,” is not a legitimate argument. U2 more or less have a flow over where our conversations begin and sometimes end. The AIDS crisis in Africa is brought to many of our attentions by Bono, and the ineffectiveness of violence in settling conflict is brought to many of our attentions by the band through “Sunday Bloody Sunday”, “Pride” and “The Hands That Built American” (download the Oscar performance). Once these topics have been brought to our attention, unlike sheep, we are free to roam across them.

"Sunday Bloody Sunday" was a song about the conflict in Northern Ireland and why the use of violent force by the IRA to achieve its political goals was a mistake.

BONO has already stated that he is NOT a pacifist. BONO and EDGE supported the use of military force in BOSNIA in 1993 to resolve the conflict there. Just look in Bill Flanagan's Book, "Until The End Of The World" and you will see that.

In the 2001 year end issue of HOT PRESS, BONO talks about his support for the war by the Bush administration in Afghanistan. He also clears up these idea's that he is a pacifist because of particular songs about specific issues, by stating that he is NOT a pacifist!



Ultimately what this shows, is that it is dangerous to make assumptions about artist political view points on specific issues based on songs or even speaches and discussions from the past. BONO and the rest of U2 have not spoken about a large number of political issues. Its there for wrong to be extrapolating their stances on specific issues or the meaning of certain songs in order to fit some other political view point, for the simple reason that the band may actually not feel that way about that particular issue.

None of my friends, that are U2 fans, are Democrats. They are all Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians. I'd say U2 fans as a whole are probably just as diverse in their political beliefs as the rest of the USA. It is true that at Interference.com, it is dominated by those that lean to the left, but not nearly to the degree that I thought it was. Around 1/3 of people in here according to the Presidential poll for FYM are voting for Bush. I did not think there were more than 10 Bush supporters here and now that number is about to top 50!

 

[indra]

It is true that at Interference.com, it is dominated by those that lean to the left, but not nearly to the degree that I thought it was. Around 1/3 of people in here according to the Presidential poll for FYM are voting for Bush. I did not think there were more than 10 Bush supporters here and now that number is about to top 50!

Wow. Now THAT is scary! And depressing.


As for this forum...the ideas and opinions expressed should be those of each individual poster. More interesting and fun that way.

 

[dlihcraw]

Subjectively, “Sunday Bloody Sunday” is about the violence in Northern Ireland caused by the NRA and how it was unnecessary. Objectively, the song makes no claim other than the proposition that violence antagonizes the prospect of justice more than it delivers justice. The Edge wanted to make a direct reference to the IRA in the song, but Bono insisted otherwise. Most people understand “Sunday Bloody Sunday” only in its objective tone.

I support the War on Terror when put into context. Any suggestion that no initiative be taken against terrorists is ridiculous, but a clear and united understanding of who are the terrorists must first be established, and initiative could and should include combating poverty, disease and global inequalities, not cultural differences. The Americans condemn the Russians for suppressing Chechen rebels, but the Russians condemn Americans for suppressing Iraqi rebels. The War on Terror is as much about realizing universal objectives as it is about eliminating terrorism. The war in Afghanistan is considerably more justifiable because it was legally sanctioned by the United Nations. Security Council problems aside, no such agreement was made to legitimize the war in Iraq, not even in the General Assembly.

I never said violence is not a legitimate form of counter-terrorist operations. I said it should be considered last of all available options and if elected, it should be done carefully and with respect to the rights of as many people as possible.

 

[dlihcraw]

Ultimately what this shows, is that it is dangerous to make assumptions about artist political view points on specific issues based on songs or even speaches and discussions from the past.

Rather, this shows that it is dangerous to make assumptions about any person’s political viewpoints on specific issues from a quick glance at what he or she said.

 

[beli]

Im a fan of U2s music ie the boom boom boom noise.

I agree with some of the things said by the individuals who make the boom boom boom noise.

But not all of it.

And I will vocalise my opinions here, there, and everywhere

Edited to add: Not that musics not important. I think its one of THE most important things around. Should be added to one of the base levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in my opinion.

 

[Anthony]

dlihcraw;

Speaking as a fellow poster, I would really have to say that I really try not to think about the politics behind the man (or woman), in any case. There are plenty of things about Bono and his various causes that I don't really agree with, and do actually even find irritating from time to time. I do, however, respect the man for at least trying to bring some good into this world.

The truth is that it is difficult to really put your finger on what a person believes and doesn't believe in, especially celebrities. I always find it questionable, at best, when people start quoting and unquoting what, for instance, Bono said about this that and the other. Its not the final trump card that wins an argument, and it doesn't really serve to sway anyone of their opinion (and indeed, it shouldn't - the day we start following celebrities for their politics is the day the world officially hits rock bottom).

You said it best, it is dangerous to make assumptions - I'd try to make sure I'm not guilty of the same thing.

Speaking as a Mod;

Let me put your surprise at ease; this is, after all, an off-topic forum. The fact that its a U2 website doesn't serve as a substantial argument anywhere, let alone in FYM.

Take it easy out there.

Ant.

 

[dlihcraw]

When I think of U2, only their music comes to mind. True, I am aware of Bono’s campaigns against AIDs and third world debt, but to me this is outside of the band. I evaluate U2 songs subjectively and objectively. I am a Roman Catholic, so I am aware of all the underlying religious principles that are present in U2’s music. However, I keep the subjective interpretation to myself because not everyone, not even every Christian, agrees with the religious aspects of U2’s work. When I discuss U2 with other people, I do so objectively. In discussing “Beautiful Day”, I will make no mention of the biblical allusion to Noah’s arc. Instead, I focus on the objective message of the song, the belief that problems come and go but life always continues. One day might be ugly, but the next could be beautiful. Similarly, in discussing “Sunday Bloody Sunday”, I avoid its religious undertones and instead ask one simple question, “In the presence of violence, how long must we all sing this song?” I have made no assumptions about U2 other than those ideas implied explicitly through their music.

During the Oscars, a reference to the invasion of Iraq was added to “The Hangs That Built America”, which roughly read, “Someone’s son dies/Is he yours, or is he mine?” From this, I gather U2 is against the use of violence in Iraq, and I don’t think that assumption is farfetched.

 

[A_Wanderer]

So? individuals are allowed to hold opinions contrary to those of celebrities, I may well hold a different opinion of the war than other people - does this mean that I am by defintion wrong, it seems that free speech is only for uber-liberals in your mind.

You labelled me Hitler - something that I find deeply offensive.

Furthurmore the charges of cultural genocide and racism were illogical at best. How does wanting to see barbarism (such as female genital mutilation and honour killings) ended forever equate to willingness to destroy a culture.

I love diversity in this world, but diversity is threatened when political systems and ideologies are oppresive and force the individual to give up their idividuality by force. To make the world safe for diversity and coexistence one must tear down the barriers, too often these barriers are found in despotic POLITICAL systems.

I have no problem with people wanting to worship freely, I have defended the rights of people to worship even though I am an atheist - refer to the previous religion thread - you have come in here and leveled serious charges against me and continue to do so.

Islamism is a political ideology. It is NOT Islam. It is an Islamic Theocracy - a system of governance, where the church and the state are one. This system is inherently bad for the individual because they must become slaves to the state. This is contrary to liberty. This has nothing to do with people wanting to live freely, this is to do with a political system which is inherently despotic that I think must be removed. Muslims deserve to live their lives freely - you seem to advocate that they live their lives like shit because some parts of Islamic society deem it to be so.

In no way, shape or form have I advocated the murder of dissidents. What I have said and I make no apologies for it is that when you are dealing with hostage scenarios such as Beslan, where the hostage takers are motivated by purely religious ideology - there can be no negotiation.

Negotiation with terrorists emboldens them and leads to more attacks, in this case saving lives with force is a better option. This is not genocide, this is a scenario where lives are hanging in the balance and there is no easy way out.

There is such a thing as good and evil in this world, you seem too insulated to reciognize it. You advocate non-interference, standing by while people are dying - why?

 

[Anthony]

dlihcraw and A_Wanderer;

Since you guys brought up the whole comparing you to Hitler thing up, I would really appreciate it if both of you buried the hatchet on that one. dlihcraw, please control your temper and keep your arguments respectful. As you saw in the last thread that was terminated because of such a disrespectful derailment, it won't be tolerated here and it will only succeed in closure of yet another thread - the most unattractive thing to see in FYM, next to two people antagonizing each other to the point of outright insult.

No more references to Hitler or Nazism, please.

Ant.

 

[-macphisto-]

Wow. Now THAT is scary! And depressing.


As for this forum...the ideas and opinions expressed should be those of each individual poster. More interesting and fun that way.

ITS NOT SCARY OR DEPRESSING, BUSH IS THE MAN!

 

[verte76]

A_Wanderer and I have had good-natured disagreements on the character of Middle Eastern politics. It's my contention that the people are generally too locked into a static world view that freezes the status quo and makes what we understand as liberal democracy impossible there right now. Just today the King of Jordan claimed that elections are impossible for Iraq right now. But heck, I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to see free elections in January that elected a Parliament or whatever. They have had peaceful demonstrations against violence and insurgency. It's not always such a bad thing to be wrong. In the end, we don't get what we want, we get what we need.

 

[Anthony]

I find your view, verte76, that liberal democracy, or any form of democracy for that matter, is not something the Middle East is ready for quite accurate.

Ant.

 

[STING2]

When I think of U2, only their music comes to mind. True, I am aware of Bono’s campaigns against AIDs and third world debt, but to me this is outside of the band. I evaluate U2 songs subjectively and objectively. I am a Roman Catholic, so I am aware of all the underlying religious principles that are present in U2’s music. However, I keep the subjective interpretation to myself because not everyone, not even every Christian, agrees with the religious aspects of U2’s work. When I discuss U2 with other people, I do so objectively. In discussing “Beautiful Day”, I will make no mention of the biblical allusion to Noah’s arc. Instead, I focus on the objective message of the song, the belief that problems come and go but life always continues. One day might be ugly, but the next could be beautiful. Similarly, in discussing “Sunday Bloody Sunday”, I avoid its religious undertones and instead ask one simple question, “In the presence of violence, how long must we all sing this song?” I have made no assumptions about U2 other than those ideas implied explicitly through their music.

During the Oscars, a reference to the invasion of Iraq was added to “The Hangs That Built America”, which roughly read, “Someone’s son dies/Is he yours, or is he mine?” From this, I gather U2 is against the use of violence in Iraq, and I don’t think that assumption is farfetched.

The band actually is against the war in Iraq, but I don't think the added lyrics were a reference to the invasion of Iraq as the song already mentions the horror of 9/11, a day where so many people were unsure of whether or not their loved ones were ok or not.

 

[Anthony]

Well, STING2, not to be nit-picky or anything, but don't you think the reference to 'desert' (though, granted, it was not in the quote dlihcraw used) is a relatively explicit reference to Iraq?

Ant.

 

[STING2]

Well, STING2, not to be nit-picky or anything, but don't you think the reference to 'desert' (though, granted, it was not in the quote dlihcraw used) is a relatively explicit reference to Iraq?

Ant.

I did not see that, and yes it could be. Then again, 'desert' can mean a lot of things. I didn't see the performance or all the added lyrics, so I can't make a judgement.

 

[nbcrusader]

Wow. Now THAT is scary! And depressing.

Because the number is still too low....

 

[nbcrusader]

This is an interesting thread. I am not sure what is gained by mixing in the personal political beliefs of U2 in our arguments. First, it is fairly clear that we can't fully articulate their beliefs because we don't know them. Second, we end up simply projecting our own beliefs as theirs. Third, nothing is gained to say "Bono doesn't agree with you on this one".

BVS spelled it out best. We are fans of music, not everything musicians do.

 

[verte76]

That's right, we don't even know what positions Bono has taken on some issues, and I would imagine he doesn't have positions on U.S. domestic policy at all because he's not a U.S. citizen. No one is going to ponder their position on the issues and wonder if Bono agrees with them. Well, I'll speak for myself, I won't. It's true he's not a pacifist. I used to be a pacifist myself, I changed this on the Bosnia issue. Then I supported both the Kosovo mission and the Afghanistan mission, but not the Iraq invasion.

 

[dlihcraw]

I support the War on Terror when put into context. Any suggestion that no initiative be taken against terrorists is ridiculous, but a clear and united understanding of who are the terrorists must first be established, and initiative could and should include combating poverty, disease and global inequalities, not cultural differences. The Americans condemn the Russians for suppressing Chechen rebels, but the Russians condemn Americans for suppressing Iraqi rebels. The War on Terror is as much about realizing universal objectives as it is about eliminating terrorism. The war in Afghanistan is considerably more justifiable because it was legally sanctioned by the United Nations. Security Council problems aside, no such agreement was made to legitimize the war in Iraq, not even in the General Assembly.

I have before shared my views on the War on Terror. Please, do not assume political positions for me.

Islam teaches modesty, conflict is to be avoided. If you are to know anything about Muhammad, let it be known that he was a very fair and balanced negotiator. That being said, in the founding days of Islam there was widespread belief in pagan religions. Islam tried to unite the Arabic people under a single god, Allah. Up until the emergence of Islam, the Arabic people were a collection of family tribes wandering the dessert and had few central meeting places. The tribes would often fight with each other for valuable resources like food and water. Islam was the tool needed to unite these tribes and put an end to tribal warfare. However, because Islam taught moderation, it could not advocate war. This is where Jihad, or Holy War, comes into effect. Jihad allowed Muhammad to use force in converting the pagans when necessary. Muhammad did not begin using Jihad until he was attacked by the pagans and forced to leave Mecca.

Jihad allows the killing of infidels, or those that jeopardize the continuation of Islam. For Muhammad, the pagans were a threat to Islam only once they became hostile. For Islamic fundamentalists, there a serious of historic events that outline their cause. Prior to the crusades and European Renaissance, the Islamic Empire was the most powerful political entity in Europe. The empire focused on intellectual endeavours, such as science and recovering the work of the ancient Greeks, while the northern Europeans focused on warfare. If it was not for the Islamic Empire recovering ancient Greek texts, the western world, which took such works when it raided Islamic cities in Spain, would have no strong understanding of Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. The decline of the Islamic Empire corresponded with the expansion of European Imperialism. With the decline in European Imperialism after World War II, several harmful effects were left in the middle-east. First, Britain unfairly distributed the land it possessed in the middle-east among several nations, equivalent to dividing Europe by placing the French people in Spain, the Spanish in Italy, the Italians in Germany, and the Germans in France. Each nation had a geographical claim that was ignored. Secondly, the United Nations created a Jewish state, Israel, over an already existing Palestinian state. An equivalent for this action would be imposing a communist state over Kentucky without impute from the residents of the state or surrounding areas. Israel placed the infidel directly in the middle-east and several consequent wars erupted. However, the Israelis could not be defeated, and this applies even to the present Israeli nation, because they were being supplied military weaponry and information from the west. No army could be raised against the Israelis because, a) they had already defeated several armies and in the process gained more territory, and, b) they were using superior weaponry. The question among Islamic fundamentalist arose, “How can we defeat the will of a superior enemy?” The answer was to use unconventional warfare tactics, which can also been observed in the American Revolution, World War II Japanese kamikaze pilots, and the conflicts in northern Ireland to name only a few.

“Islamism” is to Islam what patriot is to “Patriotism” and “Commercials” is to commercial. I have already caught you A_Wanderer in several lies based upon false definitions or improper understanding of the concepts being discussed.

Today, with television and the internet, the infidel is all around Islam. The western world required decades and arguably even centuries of intense debate to extend voting rights to woman and later minorities. For Muslims in most countries, such a concept as equal rights among the sexes has not naturally appeared. Naturally is said because with the flick of a switch Sex In The City comes on television and tells young Islamic woman that not only do they have equal rights to men, but they can freely discuss and have sex with men, even other woman in they chose. Websites are no better, offering anything from grotesque western sexual appetites to western hate groups. Over night, not over a long and continuous process debating the fundamental rights of all people, did Islamic woman discard their veils for miniskirts. The Islamic fundamentalist feels his or her faith is in constant danger. How would Americans react if television and the internet displayed predominantly Islamic values? How would Americans respond to such a remote and superior enemy? The Islamic fundamentalists asked the same question ask before, But put it into a global perspective this time, “How can we defeat the will of a superior enemy?”

What you, and many others fail realize is that the problem exists both here and there. Islamic fundamentalists preach the murder of infidels. Western values encourage the cultural extermination of all other societies. Ask yourself, “Does a MacDonald’s or Starbucks in the middle-east aggravate or relieve the Islamic fundamentalists fight? Why are we even in the middle-east?” Oil doesn’t require the exportation of our cultural norms to the middle-east. Something else is occurring, and saying that such (most) people are backwards because they don’t understand our “higher” values is counter-productive. Again, hurtful or not, you view on the terrorist situation is entirely from an ethnocentric position. You make no attempt to permit cultural relativism. Social change can and will occur in the middle-east through innovation, discovery and diffusion, but unlike a UPS package, does it need overnight delivery?

The problem of terrorism is as much ours as it is Islam’s, our enemy is as much as terrorist as are we. Until cooperation is initiated, only pain and suffering of all kinds will exist.

 

[BVS]

This thread makes no sense.

 

[dlihcraw]

I attended a Roman Catholic high school. The emphasis of the school was not on theology, but on understanding the role of Catholicism in the world next to other religions. Extensive understanding of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, as well aboriginal religions, was taught. The end product a sense of cultural moderation and cooperation.

 

[Dreadsox]

Muhammad was a fair and balanced negotiator? I have tremendous respect for him, and that respect comes from the fact that he negotiated for peace when he knew he could not win. He would very often cancel the treaty over something minor, when he knew his military stregnth was superior.

This is what many islamofacists are preaching today.

 

[verte76]

You're right about the transmission of knowledge, particularly Aristotle. But Europeans helped with the transmission of Aristotle in European academia. In the twelfth century there was only one text of Aristotle available to European scholars, a book on dialectics which had been translated by the sixth century scholar Boethius. Then a whole slew of European scholars went to Moorish Spain and worked with the Moors and translated the whole corpus of Aristotle from Arabic to Latin. Latin was the language of scholarship in medieval Europe. After this the universities overcame institutional hostility to Aristotle. They had had the works of Plato; in fact, early European thought was dominated by Neo-Platonists because St. Augustine of Hippo was a Neo-Platonist. At first the popes and academics were hostile to Aristotle, who was very different philosophically from Plato, and it took until the early fourteenth century for the "establishment" to accept Aristotle. The transition came with the emergence of value placed on individuality and personal worth, as opposed to the dwelling on man's insignificance and sinful nature of the earlier Middle Ages. Peter Abelard wrote his autobiography in the twelfth century. I have an Internet link to a text of it on one of my history sites. He and other academics openly questioned the sacrosanct notion of Neo-Platonic universals. A storm of controversy ensued. But there was no blocking the change in Europe's intellectual climate. This paved the way for the Renaissance.