Matt: The Magna Carta: Constitutional Law and Equality

As you noted earlier Jim, our notion of universal equality is central to the examination of our morality. Universal Equality is nicely captured in the United State's foundational literature: "...all men are created equal...". This is language from the Declaration of Independance. Directly following from that mission statement is the implementation instructions, The Constitution of the United States.

Constitutional law derives from holding that the rule of law is supreme. So that all goes back to the Magna Carta (13th century) (and further back to the Charter of Liberties (12th century) and perhaps even further), which boils down to placing the rule of law above the rule of the king. It starts the great discussion that ends with all men being equal before the law. From "law above king" to "all men equal", I present some of the following history:

The Charter of Liberties predates the Magna Carta by 100 years. In it, Henry I takes the throne with the promise of certain abridgements of his rights. He states, "I, through fear of god and the love which I have toward you all, in the first place make the holy church of God free". This had little to do with Christianity's notion of morality, and was a political move to get the Church of England out from under the rule of the Catholic Church of Rome.

Although God was invoked for the Magna Carta as well, religion plays no central role in the debate between King John, the Barons, and the Catholic Church. The Church was involved, but a Christian notion of morality played no role in the Magna Carta's central themes, which were to give the English Barons more power.

I will note from Wikipedia that perhaps the Charter of Liberties did not really abridge Henry's authority as much as it seems it should have, and not as much as the Magna Carta abridged King John's. Specifically these document codify: the rule of law over the rule of King, the Right of Habeas Corpus, and judge's rights.

Throughout the next few hundred years, the Magna Carta grew in influence as each new king re-affirmed it in their own charters as they assumed the throne. I think it was Henry III who took the throne as a boy who, predictably as followed from his age at coronation, lost the most power early, and then set that loss in stone as he ruled for over 50 years.

In the late 1500s, Edward Coke came along and helped interpert the Magna Carta as applicable to all citizens of the realm, and not just to nobles. He was Speaker of the House of Commons, and later was the Lord Chief Justice. Coke asserted the rights of free men in a variety of circumstances. Incidentally, he was also involved in landmark cases on anti-trust and judicial review.

I've read through several of Coke's rulings and I can't find a case where he harkens back to God or Christianity. He refers a lot to common law, but his rulings are largely secular. I invite further review as my research was far from comprehensive.

From Coke, although it took some more centuries, it is clear how we get the United State's founding documents, then an abolition of slavery, of sufferage, and of civil liberties of African Americans.

Clearly other forces apply, but this lineage of secular forces from the 1100s to the 1960s makes a strong case for a secular origin to the growth of human equality.

Jim: Aside: My God is not Spinoza's God

I labeled this as an aside because it does not directly address the impact of religion on equality & tolerance, but I think it is of interest to Matt.

In the first post I presented three questions, one of which was: Is God real? And I have pointed out from time to time that when I say yes to that, I mean something that is objectively true. So, answering that God is real to some people, just like saying Santa Claus lives in the hearts of all generous people, would mean the answer to my question is "no." (Both for God and Santa Claus.)

While reading Spinoza's chapter "On God" in his work, "Ethics," it occurred to me that what Spinoza is doing with talking about substance, attribute, mode, etc. is similar to what people like to do now when they talk about subjective truths. That is, he's applying the fashionable topic of his day to God.

Qualifier: I believe that God is in the hearts of people, and I believe God works through you. I also think it is possible that Spinoza and Anselm were on to something, some aspect of the existence, in their writing. But in both cases, I believe God is much more than that.

If you read the Bible you will see and evolution of the vision of God professed by the Hebrews. In Genesis, God is walking around with them. In Exodus, God is the best of all Gods, and not human like at all, to see his face would kill you. By the time of Jesus, God is the only true God. My time line may be off, and if there is someone reading who can correct it please do. Nonetheless, this evolution happened, and more directly points me to an understanding of what I'm talking about that the work Spinoza does, or, for lack of a better term, the current trend to create a subjective God.

* * *

One thing this does to further the direct discussion is that to the extent Spinoza adds to the Western Civilization's development of equality & tolerance, he is moving outside of and separate from the church.

Spinoza

The Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. publishes a book called The Great Conversation, and in that book is an author-to-author index cataloging “how the authors use, expand on, or refute the ideas of their predecessors.” According to these folks, Spinoza’s predecessors were the Bible and Descarte.

Spinoza was born in 1632. His parents had left Portugal to benefit from the religious tolerance of the Dutch. The Jewish community regarded his father highly, but that same community excommunicated Spinoza by the time he was twenty-four for “abominable heresies which he practice[d] and t[aught].” In 1670 Spinoza wrote the Theological-Political Treatise to assert “the liberty of philosophizing and of saying what we thing.” Great Books of the Western World, volume 28, Biographical Note Benedict (Baruch) de Spinoza.

So, it appears Spinoza is definitely one for us!

Matt: Subdivisions

The most useful thing for me that you've said so far was: You cannot take [Christ's] words and use them like mathematical equations.

This is still, and since about our second post, a sticking point we have. Your Christianity is one thing, and that thing is just too narrow a definition to encompass 15th century Popes, evangelical radio hosts, modern Lutherans, George W. Bush, and the average liberal Christian in America.

Christianity today, and its history as it informs today's morality is going to have to be subdivided if we're to make much progress. My thinking on this starts with assumptions that Sam Harris made in The End of Faith and how that dis-serves you.

He makes the argument that functionally, thinking about the Almighty as a Muslim leads to very different results than thinking about the Almighty as a Christian. In fact I think I remember his reference to India's Jains. Harris makes the claim (very supportable, I think) that one main difference between a Jain and a Muslim from a real-world-results point of view is that you simply can not be a Jain and make enough leaps of logic to become a terrorist (perhaps he said suicide bomber). That Jainism's basic assumptions are fundamentally incompatible with the conclusions one would have to come to in order to decide on martyrdom as a course of action. I agree with him about this, and I'd expect you would too.

An earlier argument we had was whether your understanding of Christianity can represent enough of the American Christianity to make useful comparisons. I think we're in a position to decide that now. My interpretation is that we are going to have to crack Christianity apart in order to make progress.

Four years ago a CNN poll reported that almost 60% of the nation believes that Revelation prophecies are going to be a literal reality. I think we have to agree that someone with that position is pretty fundamentally different from you in how they gain their moral compass. As different as Jains and Muslims? No, I don't think so, but certainly how and why a person's moral compass may migrate over time (and into his progeny) has to be very divergent on whether they think the Rapture as depicted in Revelation is an inevitable reality for human beings.

This is one exemplar of what I think we would find would be a dozen fundamental differences between you and large numbers of American Christians. I won't push further into the argument I made lightly last month that maybe you and they are not both Christians, but I will assert that in terms of how your interpretations of Christianity will inform the logical extension of your morality, you are not headed in the same direction.

Equality versus Tolerance

Are these two values or one? If Equality means equality of all humans than it leads naturally to tolerance of others. However, if equality means equality of citizens, it does not necessarily lead to tolerance of non-citizens. Also, Equality has meant from time to time equality among qualified people: Whites, Men, Landowners, etc.

It seems the church's role might be different in each.

I would suggest that equality may be found more easily in the church that tolerance.

I do think we need to nominate a non-church thinker as the starting point of tolerance. Or perhaps there was an event or change in society that we should investigate.

Jim: Sidenote: Evolving Christianity

In 1776, there was this idea in the United States that people were equal. Just because your father was a monarch did not mean that you could take my property away, or tell me to be quiet, or tax me whatever you wanted. The fact is, the power of the monarch, of the whole government, came from the people. All people are created equal; and all people have certain rights that no government can take away from them.

What those ideas mean now, is very different from what they meant in 1776. For one thing, property and government are very different. For another thing, we've taken the next logical step in some of those ideas.

America is where we are right now in this experiment in democracy.

In the first century A.D. there was this idea that the law was not enough. It was not enough to live into God's hope for humanity to simply follow the rules in the book. There needed to be a spiritual transformation, and without that transformation, you were lost.

The practice of Christianity has changed since then. When it was a cult, there were certain requirements, such as giving away all of your money to the group, that were not practiced with it was the imperial religion. It has changed and evolved with the science and sociology of the times.

Christianity is where we are right now in the experiment to find a connection with God.

* * *

I've just started Sam Harris's book, "The End of Faith." (Or Regligion, not sure.) And what he wants to do, is claim that religion, unlike everything else is stagnant and not evolving. That is simply wrong.

It does not demean religion to say that it has been transformed by broad social trends. Religion is to bring people to God, and to do that it must be different now than it was in 1450 C.E., or 2000 B.C.E.

* * *

While speaking to fellow Jews, where the choices of religions were following the Jewish law or making offerings to pagan temples seeking the intervention of disinterested Hellenistic deities, Jesus said for the people to follow him. He said that he was the way to his Father's home.

Jesus was right. It was not enough to follow the law, that was an empty existance. There was more than the painful and oppressed world before them. And, to realize that truth was to be reborn into a new existence unlike what was left behind. It does not mean that I have to view the current manifestation of Judahism as less than the current manifestation of Christianity.

Jesus was a real person addressing real problems. He was talking to people who were suffering and bringing them relief. He was trying to transform their lives to allow them to live on this planet in greater harmony with the rest of creation. You cannot take his words and use them like mathematical equations. It just doesn't work that way. They have specific meaning in specific context.

* * *

What's become of that tradition? Is it lost, is it no longer of value to individuals and society? That's the main conversation we're having. But Christianity, is different now than it was then. There are very, very few things that were essential then that are essential now.

My goodness, in only just over two centuries our democracy has completely changed. We've radically expanded suffrage, but dramatically expanded federal power. New challenges, new understandings, and so on.

Surely, the human organization designed to bring us to God would have to change similarly. In Harris's book he makes the absurd claim that man from the 1400's would be at ease in our churches today. That is simply not so. The church has changed, as has science and politics. They are related, and that's okay.

* * *

Just to reconnect, I think that Christianity was a valuable influence in creating the values of equality and tolerance in Western Culture.

Matt: Luther as Everyman

The passage from Luther as a younger man is indeed a mainstream view born pretty directly from Christian scripture and doctrine. The latter passages are a terrible evil, and are quite a stretch from the original texts. In the evolution of Luther's thinking, we see the crux of our discussion.

While I imagine you will mount a credible defense that Christianity -- the strict adherence to Christ's teachings -- has no place for the killing of heretical rabbis, Luther's comments as an old man are the inevitable results of the assertion that a certain school of thought is the one true path to God. Hence the proposition that religion inherently leads to human suffering. When a school of thought claims The Way, The Truth and The Light, there is by definition a devaluing of all other claims to truth. When the argument revolves around one's fitness to sit at the right hand of the Creator, devaluing someone's truth is devaluing their fitness before God. It becomes inevitable that your opponents are heretics.

Jim: Topic I: Secular Sources of Equality?

Some time after the Reformation & Renaissance Western Civilization began moving toward greater equality for its members. That meant throwing off notions of royalty and a ruling class. Getting rid of slavery and, in the United States, ending Jim Crowe. We've named this move as one of the great values of Western Civilization.

I've proposed two sectarian sources of that idea: (1) The text of the Bible which demands kindness to the stranger and proper treatment of poor, as well as, lifting up all human beings as the intentional creation of God, and (2) the Protestant Reformation which began the process of tearing down church hierarchy.

So, what are the secular sources? Do we start with Thomas Jefferson or Locke? By secular I don't mean atheist writers, we'll never know whether anyone was an atheist. I mean people who did not use religion as the source of their move toward equality, or lets say primary source. You really can't pull the Bible out of Western thinking any more than you could pull the ideas of the Constitution out of American theological thinking.

Matt: On Personal Morality

Ahh... I can stop tearing down the famously righteous and just talk about me for a change. If there's a topic I like more than myself, I can't think of it.

You said:

If I were not a Christian, I do not think I would believe all people are equal.

I am a secularist. Or an atheist, or a materialist. Something along those lines. I am not unclear on my own beliefs, but consistant definitions amongst people self-identifying as any of those things are very hard to come by.

Being one of those, I believe that everyone is equal. Not in the eyes of God and not for any spiritual reason. I believe everyone is equal because I see no ultimate reason or order to the universe. There is no one keeping score, so how could you argue that I am achieving on some level more than anyone else? Or better than a gnat for instance? I don't think I am more moral, or better, or more or less equal than a gnat. It has as much "right" to exist as I do. Even the concept of having "rights" outside of a human context is silly in my mind. Again, with no objective standard, the concept makes no sense. Since I have no God that can stand immovable against this universe's frame of reference, there is no standard against which I can judge the relative value of lives, or life vs. non-life for that matter.

Why am I moral at all? Because I was taught to be, and being taught to be something for a brain constructed like a primates' is reason enough, I guess. I would imagine that is not a satisfying answer, but it's the best I've come up with.

Matt: On Luther

There is an ugly trend brewing. Because as you point out, most scholars before very recent times were theists, or at least presented themselves as such, we are in a rut. You are presenting very good things about your faith, and I am left to refute that, inevitably finding ugly things to say about Popes, Cardinals, Church Elders and reformers of Western society. Oh well, nothing for it, I suppose.

Luther did indeed reform on the basis that common Germans should have access to the scripture. I believe a reasonable case can be made that a thread of the philosophy of equality of all men before God is found, generally, in that line of reasoning. However, let's examine some of Luther's actual published works.

In 1543, Luther wrote to Christians a proscription of the Jews:

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.

Lest this be seen as just a general slur on the man, he gets more specific about how the Christian must treat the Jew:

I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all hristians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us...

There's a lot, but here are the specifics:

First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them....

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed....

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them....

Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb....

Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews....

Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping....

Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam...

All of the ellipses do not change the meaning, each admonition I quoted above is the specific action, and the following paragraph which I expurgated is just the justification for the action, all about devils, evil, etc.

Here is the paragon of Christian scholarship, specifically advocating the destruction of Jewish homes and places of worship, the killing of Rabbis, the taking of their money and livelihood, the denial of safe passage and putting them to hard labor.

Did his more famous scholarly list have a greater (and more good) influence? Perhaps, but this more obscure list comes from the same Christian scholarship and might easily have been the playbook from which German horrors sprung 400 years later. I should do the research and discover if Luther's writings show up in Nazi propaganda -- it certainly sounds suspiciously similar.

What are we to make of this? I think it's hard to say. I conceded early on that Luther's battles with the Catholic church on behalf of the common (Christian) German can be defended as a statement on equality, but it is much more the relative of the equality of Orwell's pig Napoleon "...but some animals are more equal than others.", than it is the relative of Thomas Jefferson's notion "...that all men are created equal..."

The translation of On Jews and their Lies taken courtesy of Fordham University.

Jim: Topic I: Q3

Similarly, I propose the following as addressing the issue of equality as it relates to the existence of God. I've stated before that I believe God is everything and then some. God is all we perceive and more. Allow me to elaborate on a mini-step toward that:

What unit of life is most significant? There are cells and tissues and organs that are all alive. There are organisms. There are families, societies, and ecosystems. There are also atoms & molecules and planets & galaxies, but these are not living.

Among the units of life, we most often view the self as being in the organism. And, that's fair enough. But there has been some pretty serious stuff, I think by William James, examining our behavior in groups that suggests there is a self in a group. When the Buddhists say that self is an illusion, it is not because they don't believe there are organisms, it is because they think that organisms are not the most significant unit of living thing.

I'd be interested to push on this a little more, but specifically for the topic of equality I would say this: Because God is all things, all people are a part of God and it is natural or right for all people to be treated equally.

[Note: Remember this question is not about religion, its about God. I'm a Christian, and my view of God is derived almost exclusively from Christians & Christian thinkers, nonetheless under this question, I feel the least constrained to address "standard" beliefs.]

Jim: Topic I: Q2

So, let Topic I be Equality. We've started an historical evaluation of the impact of religion on equality. Seeking to answer: Is Religion Good for the Country? But, maybe this is too dry all alone. Here's another root, which is to explore: Is Religion Good for a Person?

If I were not a Christian, I do not think I would believe all people are equal. It is one of the most significant impact's my faith has had on my value system. Now, I would certainly be a Democratic Populists. But, you can be one of those and still think you are fundamentally better than others. It is my faith that brought me to truly see everyone as a child of God and therefore intrinsically equal.

Jim: MetaPost

Here is a story that sort of shows up a problem we'll have analyzing things. http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html Namely, everyone in government claims a religion. And, just about everyone in history has. So, it makes it super difficult to tell was is secular and what is sectarian.

Jim: Topic I: Equality: Luther

The big question is whether religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion, has helped Western Civilization. The current issue is whether this religion brought about the move toward greater equality of its members.

The Protestant Reformation was a gigantic move toward equality. It challenged the authority of the church and right of church members to have access to the holy documents. The notion that, in the eyes of God, we are all equal was crucial to the march toward greater equality. Luther and the Church contributed to the establishment of this value in Western Civilization.

Jim: Topic I: Equality-Origins

By the end of the Fifteenth century inequality was dramatic in the Western World. I will suggest it was at a peak. Europe was ruled by monarchies that separated citizens into many classes with different rights, and much different quality of life. Even worse than Europeans on the bottom of the economic system were non-Europeans being held as perpetual slaves and traded as a commodity.

This system was the product of the savage pursuit of wealth and power. Neither secular philosophers, nor religious thinkers had much to do with the creation of the system. I've pointed out a couple ideas that could help facilitate this turn of events, but seems unlikely either were the cause.

Jim: Topic I: Origins

I have a thought I want to put up before we abandon the origins of slavery. I've been thinking about Machiavelli and any relation he might have to treating people unequally. Now, I've actually read The Prince. It was a long time ago, and I wish I could read it again, but here's the deal. Machiavelli is not about being cold-hearted. He's about being practical. He is talking about how to maintain control when maintain control is your business. As Schepman said to Mellancamp when he came to auction of his land, I'm just doing my job. (Calling it your job ol' hoss sure don't make it right.)

What Machiavelli may have brought that led to inequality, even dramatic inequality, is detachment. Maybe that helps transform an economy (biblical slavery) to an autrocity (atlantic perpetual slavery).

While I'm on it, I think the Judeo-Christian tradition has some ugliness to deal with. Not the recognition of the practice of slavery. That's a sign of the times, and in fact the biblical tradition just regulates a common practice. What the Judeo-Christian tradition brings is the notion of exceptionalism. We are the God's chosen people. Africans aren't. This is a fine offering to a nomadic tribe that is getting conquered every few centuries by another Empire.

(Thanks to Matt for this btw, This really is super: http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf )

But when Constantine invited Christianity to mount the horse, well, suddenly exceptionalism becomes dangerous.

Darn, that post wasn't short either.

Jim: Topic I: Secular Philosphers

We were poking around the 1450's. One way to look at this might be to consider the prominent thinker of the era. According to the Great Books Society big thinkers of the time were Erasmus and Machiavelli. Copernicus comes in a little later and Chaucer was much before. I'm just spit balling here because I really dig the idea of the Great Conversation.

Jim: Topic I: Beginning of the Slave Trade

I've done a little Googling around and found a general web consensus that economic motives started the slave trade. Any argument on that? It seems safe.

The idea of forced labor way predates the European slave trade. Matt mentioned its use by Romans/Greeks. You can't talk about slavery, civil rights, or affirmative action for more than ten minutes without someone raising the startling revelation that Africans also practiced slavery.

Do Western religious or secular thinkers bear any blame for the harshness of slavery that came when slavery became a racial issue? For example, the notion that one remained a slave forever and that one's children were the property of the owner. Those were new, right?

I hear that short blogging is the way to go, so I'll leave it there for now.