Joseph de Maistre against. Germaine de Staël, Joseph de Maistre and. Germaine de Staël had contrasting opinions on the readability of the French Revolution based on their religious beliefs. Apparently, even though the revolution might have had a laudable cause, equality for all, the consequences of years of violence and mass prosecutions against religion. In her “Considerations on the Principal Events of the French Revolution,” Germaine de Staël supports radical efforts against the absolute monarch but opposes their brutal nature. Meanwhile, Joseph De Maistre's "Considerations on France" attacked the revolutionaries using a religious and dictatorial model that seemingly proved their ideologies wrong. Apparently the man objected. Regarding Maistre, the argument that the Enlightenment should have benefited all of France instead of destroying the country's political, social and economic spheres makes sense to the rational mind. Additionally, the rapid executions of French nobles were both brutal and contrary to religious beliefs; therefore the man makes another good point. However, the issue focuses on the relationship between politics and religion during the French Revolution, and Staël shows a more superior understanding of it. In other words, it is absurd to assume that human beings are slaves of God because, especially in Christianity, free will is a major concept. This is why Maistre is wrong. Likewise, if all people are free before God, they should be the same as other humans, which makes the old system a defilement of God's will. In fact, this proves that Staël's analysis of illumination as divine intervention is satisfactory. Last but not least, even though the brutal nature of the revolution seems to go against Christian teachings or Staël's personal views, the indisputable fact is that in the absence of violence, France would still have an absolute monarch. Based on the conclusion given, such possibilities would have been contrary to God's desires; therefore, the violence was