Jim: Is this part of our problem?

Media Matters highlights a report that demonstrates significant media bias toward presenting conservative Christians over liberal Christians in various forms of media. Could this have something to do with the disconnect between my view of "average Christians" and Matt's?

Jim: Ugliness Not Limited to the 16th century

A Christian student at Liberty University constructed a car bomb to use against protesters at Falwell's funeral. The protesters he was concerned with were not leftists, but other Christians who protest the funerals of soldiers. In the '80s and '90s Christian terrorist made a concerted effort to attack abortion clinics.

These are not just acts of Christians, they are acts that the particular Christians believe to be an expression of their faith. The question is, but for Christianity, could these things occur? But for Islam, could you have so called honor killings?

It is a sobering question for me. But this much I know, as a Christian it is my obligation to stand up to this kind of evil. I must denounce everyone who would use violence in the name of the faith. As inclined as we are to be tolerant and accepting--indeed without these ideals in the Christianity that I practice I would probably not be Christian--we must nonetheless have the courage to condemn this violence. What is more, I believe we must condemn the ideology that leads to it.

Matt: Next Steps?

Okay, I agree with the new idea, we'll try to tag things for clarity.

One of my problems is that lately I've been busy at work, another is not knowing exactly how best to proceed. I research things, but then I have a hard time with figuring out how to pursuasively conclude that there are causations. So I am shrill and point out all these Christians who did dispicable things. To that point, in Red Man's Land White Man's Law Washburn quotes Charles V as writing in 1529:

We trust that, as long as you are on earth, you will compel and with all zeal cause the barbarian nations to come to the knowledge of God, the maker and founder of all things, not only by edicts and admonitions, but also by force and arms, if needful, in order that their souls may partake of the heavenly kingdom.

So again, I have a Christian King saying something terrible about non-Christians, and advocating violent conversion. So where does that get us? How would I be able to convince us or anyone else that this had a lasting impact on the culture of Christians in the New World?

Do you see my problem?

Jim: Jump Start

I wonder if the very careful format for which I advocated initially is slowing things down too much? I think it is. So, maybe we should talk about lots of topics and use the tagging feature to sort them out for when we write a book.

I will clarify and reiterate a little here and then maybe we can get the discussion going again.

First off, the point of this blog is to evaluate the impact of religion on our country. It is basically a backward looking blog--what has religion done for us. I am writing another blog that looks at where I think Christianity should go. So, that will help me keep the should've happened's out of a discussion a the did happens.

I think religion has had an impact on: tolerance, equality, justice, charity, optimism, the pursuit & use of peace/war, and the pursuit & use of science. I think on balance religion has been good, but acknowledge it could have been a lot better and at time was/is a hindrance to what is best for the country.

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.

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.