I can't argue against the fact that Christians were often the primary advocates for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. I haven't done the research, but I wouldn't be surprised if non-christians (as well as non-theists) were also important (and I am assuming that Jews in this case fit into your argument that Judeo-Christian is the ethic here). That having been said, I am going to fall back on the earlier tack I took, but perhaps develop the point a bit.
So in 1455 (January 8th, by the way) the Romanus Pontifex Papal Bull was issued on behalf of Portugal and its claims regarding some (or all) of South America (please excuse this, it's incredibly hard to edit 15th century legal language for clarity):
We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery...
So there you go. In the 15th century, the Catholic authority said that Portugal could enslave anyone they found in S. America at their discretion. The authority the papacy used to determine they could issue this permission was not more or less developed than that used by the mid-20th Century American Christians to argue against unequal treatment for blacks. Martin Luther King, Jr. was no smarter than Pope Nicholas V. He certainly couldn't claim to know more about the Bible or of Christian Theology and traditions. Not more about what the historical or biblical Jesus had to say about the treatment of other people. In fact the only thing MLK had over NV was a greater understanding of science&technology, and an ethic informed by 20th century Western thought.
Do you think MLK had a greater understanding of Christ or Christianity? I would assume you do, given that you come in to this discussion with the assumption that Christianity is almost MLK's vision by definition. But I would argue that an easier explanation (Occam's Razor) for the difference is that ethics have matured in the last few hundred years, and Christianity has moved with it.
1 comment:
Matt: Do you think MLK had a greater understanding of Christ or Christianity? I would assume you do, given that you come in to this discussion with the assumption that Christianity is almost MLK's vision by definition. But I would argue that an easier explanation (Occam's Razor) for the difference is that ethics have matured in the last few hundred years, and Christianity has moved with it.
Jim: I'm going to do some work to help us look at cause and effect in a bit as a separate post. What I wanted to get out while I had a few minutes is the Christianity has absolutely evolved over time. The message of Middle Eastern teacher named Jesus has presumably remained constant. (I suppose we do learn a bit here and there about translations, etc.) But Christianity surely changes.
So, I would not say MLK had a better understanding of Christianity than the 15th century writer. I would say MLK was more aligned with Jesus' teachings based on the plain meaning of the words contained in the records of Jesus' words.
I think this issue we're working on is: But for Christianity, would Western society have entered into and/or abandoned the practice of racial discrimination? I think you're arguing from the position that secular western thought brought us away from it; and maybe religious thinking brought us to it. I am arguing that religious thinking brought out of it; and the natural state brought us to it.
Post a Comment