Scott Alexander (author/host)

The question is, given that, how can we explain everything else?

Obviously, if you're a Catholic, you can be content with the first model, and indeed can be very smug that this is exactly what your religion would predict.

Non-Catholic Christians might want to consider switching sects, or just might want to say that Joan is before Protestantism and we don't know what she would have thought of it.

Footnote.

Actually, she wrote the Hussites a very angry letter, telling them that she'd campaign against them when she had free time.

And at one point, I think it was in the trial of condemnation, but it might have been while she was very frustrated with the French Peace Party and its truces, she offered to go into exile and actually do it.

So this suggests she's pro-Catholic, anti-Protestant, though of course we don't know what would have happened if she'd had the chance.

Back to the text.

The rest of us have a harder problem.

Neither of the two theories make sense.

Specific points that I debate back and forth with myself.

3.3 Thus spake the people, but whether she had done well or ill, she was burned that day.

Enter Urundel, who believes Joan is mad, and Basilica, who believes she is a saint, halfway through a long argument.

Urundel, why this war?

Basilica, you mean out of all the wars for God to put his finger on, why should he put it here?

Arendelle, yes, the Armagnacs are crooks.

Charles VII is a pretty terrible king.

The knight who was her bodyguard was planning to rape her on the road.

Sure, the English suck, but everyone in this entire story sucks.

If you want to say that God cares more about religion than morality, that doesn't even help.