What has this to do with persecution? If you read the article, there's nothing there. Some did believe his ideas, many did not, and he was not granted the job he wanted at a prestigious hospital (instead, they offered him a similar position but with somewhat less perks) and that's it.
Well, it might hasn't burned people, but a lot of harm has been done in its name that's nearly as bad.
From lobotomy, which was a common practice back in the day, to electroshock therapy to unconventional people (not legitimately crazy, just anybody as long as their parents/guardians convinced there was "something wrong with them" e.g. from gay to wanting to live a bohemian life and having a conservative family).
And of course modern science happily collaborated with all kinds of power to give us the atomic bomb, biological weapons, and other atrocities.
Convinced, as a scientific establishment, that your theories/dogmas about being straight/gay are correct, and subjecting the "sick" into electroshock and other therapy is not persecution?
What's the definition of persecution you are using that doesn't include such cases?
And things such as lobotomy/heavy drugs/etc which were applied to all kind of strays/dissidents from mainstream values/conventions (and not just legitimately crazy people) is also classic persecution. And it didn't just happen behind the "Iron Curtain".
>Convinced, as a scientific establishment, that your theories/dogmas about being straight/gay are correct, and subjecting the "sick" into electroshocks is not persecution?
That's exactly right!
The intent behind the medical practices you list is not to oppress, but to cure. It's misguided, horrific, tragic, etc., but persecution it is not.
>What's the definition of persecution you are using that doesn't include such cases?
The usual one. Citing Merriam-Webster:
1. to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2. to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities)
The key point is that persecution is generally understood to require some sort of punitive or retaliatory intent, which is not at all the case of the practices you mention.
Moreover, you seem to be confusing "the scientific community" with "the political community", the latter of which is largely responsible for the misuse of scientific discovery in cases of actual persecution. N.B.: none of this was done in the name of science. To say that science has persecuted mankind to the extent that religion has is patently absurd.
In fact, and with my sincerest respect (really!), much of your above posts are absurd, conflating political/ideological persecution with varying forms of misguided medicine, recklessness, short-sightedness, etc. To be sure, these are all Bad Things, but persecution is a rather narrowly-defined concept, especially in colloquial use.
>The intent behind the medical practices you list is not to oppress, but to cure. It's misguided, horrific, tragic, etc., but persecution it is not.
That's wrong.
For one, the church also did legitimately believe that they were curing (saving the soul, etc) of those they persecuted. So the "good intentions" of those doing such acts is not the defining criterion.
Second, such science was used to promote political and moral agendas (there was nothing to cure in a homosexual, and even less in more blatant cases, e.g. putting people in favor of black civil rights or women's rights/suffrage in psychiatric asylums or shock treatment).
There are of course other places that used similar techniques (from USSR and Nazi Germany to Britain, nordic countries and beyond).
>Moreover, you seem to be confusing "the scientific community" with "the political community", the latter of which is largely responsible for the misuse of scientific discovery in cases of actual persecution.
The scientific community was (and still is in various cases) complicit in adopting the political ideas (or promoting them in the first place), assisting those in power with scientific (or "scientific") theories and diagnoses, and enforcing them in practice. It was actual doctors, with degrees et al, that did those things, not politicians...
Also, if we widen the scope from persecution, then basically all organized religions have a whole litany of sins to answer for in other areas, lets go with high body-count wars for starters.
Well, all, or almost all "religious wars" have historically been cover-ups for expansion of territory, power plays between populations, and money grabbing. So religion was just a pretext there.
Weirdly, I have always believed this to be the case, but just yesterday I considered that it was possible I was wrong.
I can't now remember exactly what news story I read, but basically it made no sense at all, unless true religious belief was the motivation, rather than selfish greed.
