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.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, March 26, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
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!
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!
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)