Jim: More on Equality & Tolerance

Here is a story from Acts 4:32-37

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%204:32-37;&version=31; (If you like a little wrath with your Biblical stories, the next chapter lets you know what happens to those who are not so civic minded.)

These people, at least in the eyes of the writer, were sort of absolute egalitarians. We know that eventually Christians will become as concerned with class and hierarchy as any caste system in India. Then some of them move the other way. But we don't see tolerance here.

Ditto for Luther, right? He brings equality to the church: perhaps echoing the civic movement, that by then was centuries old, to return equality to government. But, he is not tolerant.

I think the ebb and flow of power from distributed to concentrated may not be the Western value we want to investigate. Maybe what we're after is just tolerance. The origins of tolerance may be entirely different from the origins of equality.

Jim: Placing Magna Carta et al. in context

Is the Magna Carta a radical change--like a discontinuity in a function--or an inflection point in an oscillation. One of several books that had the virtue of challenging my world view is Lies My History Teacher Told Me. http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/ In this book, Loewen challenges, among others, the notion that American history is a steady march toward liberty for all. Rather, we expand liberty for a while, then in contracts, then we expand it--and so on.

Anyway, and this is sparked by how far back the first document you mentioned goes, is there a habit among humans to give up liberty to a leader for certain social advantages, then take some back, then give some up? Are the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the Civil Rights Act all examples of taking some liberty back?

It impacts our primary discussion thusly: if religion does something for a society, it gives society values, desires, aims, etc. that would not otherwise be there. Likewise, with thinkers, I suppose. We don't need great thinkers to tell us to eat or have sex, for example.

Okay, I had a few minutes and I wanted to avoid letting the discourse die. Also, I haven't read enough of Spinoza yet.