"My estimable co-blogger King of Ireland has taken issue with my claim (along with Ed Brayton, Gregg Frazer, Robert Kraynak and others) that the Bible nowhere speaks to the concept of unalienable rights, especially an unalienable right to religious and political liberty.
I think the problem between us is one of semantics, that is we need to clarify concepts and premises underlying our claims. There is a certain "literal" interpretation of the Bible which looks at what the text says on its face and cites verses and chapters of scripture as specific proof texts. The specific/literal approach, one many evangelicals are fond of following. In that sense, the Bible does not speak to unalienable rights, political or religious liberty. I've read the parts that supposedly do from cover to cover. It's an open and shut case."
I just want to ask Jon if literalism is the only valid method then where do Frazer and others get the Trinity and Original Sin from? They are concepts some see in the Bible. Just like rights based on imago dei. They whine when people do it and come up with interpretations they do not like but do the same themselves. The only thing that really matters for our purposes is that both approaches are historically Christian. Augustine was open to Genesis being an allegory for crying out loud.
Now is this being a tar baby? Or is this a valid critique of a weak argument? So as not to be accused of the former I do not "demand" that you respond unless you want to and think it will add to the discussion.
*Update- Jon has said that he did not mean this "tar baby" thing personally and I think I understand what he was saying. The problem is that the genie is out of the bottom and some others have taken it to mean that the argument for rights from the Bible is equlivalent to an absurd argument made only by fools. Here is my response down in the comments section here. I think we might need some clarification*
*The tar baby discussion continues at Best One Way*
32 comments:
King,
Honestly, I didn't mean the tar baby thing personally. I tried to carefully choose my words, but I probably should have been even more careful.
I've acted the tar baby many of times. :)
Jon,
I accept that Jon. The trouble with Electronic communication is it is really hard to understand intent. You are a good dude but I do think you could have chosen your words more carefully.
I do get your point that discussions can become unproductive. As far as this one goes I think we have all said what we need to say and understand each other.
I think I got to that point with Gregg on the Romans 13 thing as well.
Where I am still not clear is the whole reason vs. revelation thing and Locke. I think this is something good to tackle next. I am still not sure what Frazer and others are saying about Locke.
Amos refutes it but I see some possible holes in his argument that further clarity would help with.
Sorry if I got a little testy been a long few weeks trying to nail down a coaching job at this late date.
"I've acted the tar baby many of times. :)"
I think we all have.
Joe, I think you've unnecessarily elevated/diverted this discussion from Jon's post.
Re: [...] where do Frazer and others get the Trinity and Original Sin from?
The concepts of Trinity and Original Sin are orthodox and descend from the creeds of early Christian belief. They do not originate with Frazer, or Jon.
I think what King's getting at is those concepts are the product of theology. The non-Trinitarians argued they were being quite Biblically literal too.
So if theology can develop Jesus' divinity, or say, the Eucharist, which fundamentalists reject I believe, it can develop liberty and rights as well and be authentically Christian or even as "Biblical" as the Trinity.
"Tom gets most of my point but it is actually more simple. There is not completely literalist interpretation. Fundementalists and some very conservative Evangelicals just like you to think there is so they can call you a liberal.
The problem is that if we take things 100 percent literal there is not Trinity or Original Sin. In fact, we would all be cutting our hands off right now for masterbation!
Jon's ploy(not meant to be negative) here is to pose the suppose literalist interpretation is the correct one. The problem is that Jon does not believe any of it and I doubt has given it much thought aside from how it affects taking on the religious right.
Frazer and other obviously do believe it but he gave them Christianity.
As far as orthodox goes you cannot get more orthodox than Aquinas who seem to believe in some degree of rights. Like I said in the post, Augustine was open to Genesis being an allegory. Frazer states this is one of the key ways to discern a theistic rationalist.
If that is allegory than it opens a can of worms that no Evangelical wants to open on original sin because the fall what be symbolic not literal.
In sum, why do Frazer and others get to use concepts that are not literally stated in the Bible and are "orthodox" and others cannot without being heretics?
If that question is not answered then Jon's whole post crumbles. Which if he would study the Bible for himself and stop depending on the thoughts of others he would see that he fell right into that trap because he does not understand this stuff as well as he should.
continued...
... I personally think it would have been more accurate to lay out the two methods of interpreting the case for rights and let his opinion out of it. When he starts making value statements about something he does not believe is even true that clouds the waters. At least for the purpose of this blog.
I could sit here and go verse by verse with him and it would lose everybody and really, as Brad would say, kill the blog.
So, I repeat, for historical purposes both methods of interpretation sited by Jon are valid. You do not need natural law either but even that is in the Bible. Though it is not literally called natural law. :)
Yes Ben I probably did divert from JOn's post but I thought I had a right to respond to the tar baby thing on the main page. I understand what he was trying to say but if you read that whole article it makes me seem like someone shouting out the moon just to get attention and not someone that takes this serious and is well informed.
But like I said, I do not think was his intent.
Two comments up it should say "who gave them Christianity" not "he gave them Christianity"
I hate to bring this up again because I know that Jon did not intend to slander me but the following comment from a post at his new blog where this was also posted confirmed my fears:
"From James Hanley in another post:
“See, here we have a perfect example of what Jon Rowe was talking about in a recent post, the “tarbaby” effect. An truly foolish argument takes no time at all to state (because it has no “thinking time” behind it), but the refutation that bothers to take it seriously is a very time-consuming task. And of course the refutation will be followed by yet another foolish comment that takes no time to make because it also has no thought behind it.”
This is the problem with Jon using this in regards to my argument that a case for rights can be made from the Bible. It is not a foolish easy argument to make and has thousands of years of serious intellectual precedent. To dismiss it as foolishness is worse than foolishness.
I accept that Jon was not intending to ruin my good name but I am afraid this nonsense did. It is nonsense that ignores large chunks of Western Theological History and elevates one narrow stream of Christian thought to speak for all of Christianity.
It absolutely confirms my concerns, and now that I am border line being slandered elevates them, that a bunch of people that absolutely do not understand the Bible or the finer points of Christian Theology should really not be making a value judgements about different views as far as the historical context goes.
Equating someone saying that honor code violations are as bad a torture with someone arguing ideas that have had merit in Western thought for centuries as both foolish arguments that are a waste of time to respond to is absurd. Though I am fairly sure James was not doing this one could read Jon’s post and then his comment and draw that conclusion.
The well is poisoned."
I think I am going to have to ask Jon to clarify his comments about why an argument for rights based on a concept clearly in the Bible is foolish to the point of being laughable and not worthy of honest debate. If that is not what he meant then I think a retraction is in order.
At the very least he completely misrepresented the interpretative method used to come to this conclusion and completely failed to realize that many of the same arguments that he uses on almost a daily basis from Conservative Christians here are dwawn from the same method.
In other words, if rights grounded in imago dei is foolishness so is the Trinity and Original Sin. That is if we are going to denouce the method of drawing concrete principles from larger concepts as he seems to do here.
In sum, why do Frazer and others get to use concepts that are not literally stated in the Bible and are "orthodox" and others cannot without being heretics?
In fairness to Gregg's [and thereby Jon's] argument, the argument is only about what was normative Christianity---orthodox, if you will---at the time of the Founding. certainly the Trinity and Jesus dying for our sins was normative then, as it is now.
How much that affects the Founding's political theology is another matter, however.
Further, I think that Protestantism itself needs to be taken into account---once the magisterium's [read: Roman Catholic church] authority to interpret scripture was rejected, all sorts of non-normative beliefs took hold, and sects multiplied like rabbits. "Tolerance" had been non-normative, but as a practical matter, they had to stop burning heretics, lest they run out of wood.
That Christian [political] theology changed to accommodate that reality is unsurprising; the problem is when fundamentalists argue Christian theology as a whole cannot change to accommodate reality.
Over the 500 years before the Founding---and in the 1000 since Constantine---it was becoming clear to Christian thinkers that liberty and consent of the governed were necessary to comport with human nature, a God-given human nature, at that. Romans 13 was on the ropes well before even the English civil wars of the 1600s, and when Protestantism hit in the 1500s, the nature of Protestantism with its rejection of top-down authority brought the notion of the individual to the forefront.
Dr. Frazer [and thereby Mr. Rowe] put certain doctrines---especially Jesus' divinity and the Atonement---on sine qua non list---it's not true Christianity without them.
Theologically speaking, from an orthodox viewpoint, they're quite correct. But it was the custom of the American political theology to not dig so deep into what "true" Christianity really is, lest they run out of wood.
Tom,
That is not what Jon is saying here. Is is elevating one method of interpretation and, arguably, labeling the other as simple minded foolishness with all the crap about the tar baby.
His problem with the imago dei and rights not being explicitly in the Bible is absurd when one can point out the same problem with the Trinity.
I am not making truth claims I am:
1. Citing the absurdity of someone that really does not have a full understanding of the Bible and relevant theology butting into and debate between two people(Frazer and I) that obvioiusly do and in at least some way implying that one is a fool.
2. Pointing out the flaw in his argument that is destroyed with the fact that imago dei and rights is not pulled out of thin air. It has a lot of heavy weights of theology, more so than Gregg Frazer, that have developed the concept over the thousands of years. It method of developing this theology is not different than the Trinity or Original Sin. Or for that matter Providence. Where is that in the Bible? We use the words availible to us to describe concepts.
Actually if we want to get techincal one could make a very good argument that right and just are the same word family as rights. In Spanish righteous and justified are the same word.
But I doubt he will respond and respect the fact that he does not want to. We have been back and forth on this enough to know where each other stand, clarify positions, and give people that want to consider both sides adequate information to draw their own conclusions or study it for themselves.
That is really all that matters in the end. I have learned a great deal just reading you two going at it over the last year or so.
"Theologically speaking, from an orthodox viewpoint, they're quite correct. But it was the custom of the American political theology to not dig so deep into what "true" Christianity really is, lest they run out of wood"
This at least proves that it is not just me he will not answer. You have challenged him a hundred times to prove a link between the soteriology and the political theology. He has not because as you stated in the other post there is not one.
That is really the bottom line and if I am going to be really honest, and I hope I choose my words carefully here because I a little frustrated with Jon over this tar baby thing, that reality cuts to shreds most of what he rights about and cast serious dispersions on the validity of the relevance.
I think he does a good job at pointing out some of the hypocrisy and overeaches of the Religious Right. In a way, that is important. But just as important is to understand that those that go down the road of this thinking are also setting up a straw man to defeat by putting words in Barton and other mouths that are not there.
Barton is foolish too because he method sets them up to accuse him with the strawman argument.
For those that think the whole thing is stupid, like I do at this point, and want to do a serious study of the breadth of Western thought it gets quite boring quite quickly. I think you probably have noticed I have not commented at Dispatches in over two months.
All that is just my opinion though. People can discuss whatever they want.
I read more of Amos's book today and I think I am going to take your advice and follow his sources and make my own arguments. His book is more of a reference manual than anything else. That is all it was intended to be. That is why there are so many holes in what he says. He is just giving you a little and expecting you to dig for more.
He quotes Tuck and Tierney extensively. I saw the Coke reference today which would tear to shreds at least some of what Chris Rodda writes about common law.
It seems a lot of this stuff goes back to Mangold in 1058. Maybe a good place to start.
"Jesus dying for our sins was normative then, as it is now."
Small point of order but to clarify one, like I believe Locke did, can believe Jesus died for our sins but still reject the concept of original sin. He believed, and I tend to agree with him in that I think Genesis was an allegory, that we are accountable for only our sin not Adam's.
But I get your point.
KOI - It seems a lot of this stuff goes back to Mangold in 1058. Maybe a good place to start.
Good. If Amos is to be discussed then I think looking at small chunks is much more manageable and Manegold is as good a target as any.
Just as a benchmark, I'm not convinced in the imageo dei argument or that the Christian "resistance writers" meant anything at all near what was being broadly talked about and acted upon in the mid to late 18th century colonies.
I'm with Brad in that a separation was coming regardless of metaphysics. Even though I don't go so far as Hogeland in dismissing the importance of religios influence on the founders, I think the primary influences were 1) the immediate exigencies of the day and trying to get a handle on the events that were happening and likely going to happen, 2) economics,3) trying to fashion functional governments and a framework for foreign relations/support, 4) political intrigues and egos, and 5) economics. Did I mention economics?
So, Who was Manegold? Did he exalt freedom and liberty for the people - expanded enfranchisement for the peasants? An overthrow of the aristocracy? Democracy? A republic? All men are created equal?
Jrb,
I gotta read about him first. The general gist is he was one of the dudes that sided with the Pope in the Investiture Crisis of Gregory. The real rub is that it seems that the Fransicans and the Domincans had a huge dispute over property. The latter for the most part counted life and liberty as part of man's person and thus man had a claim right to it.
It seems that it was settled by one of the Pope's and that the Domican view went into Protestantism. I thought that was interesting.
The other thing I thought was interesting was that the people rebelled against King and Pope with teh Magna Carta. When the Pope was not going to hold the King to it the people were going to depose him and install the King of France. The King of France and the Pope died shortly after and the King of England stayed.
I say all this to say it seems that Tierney starts it all with Mangold. I will try to read up on it. Tom might be right that Tierney and Tuck are better sources than Amos. Though Amos writes for the layman and it is easier to digest. Maybe both are necessary.
"I'm with Brad in that a separation was coming regardless of metaphysics. Even though I don't go so far as Hogeland in dismissing the importance of religios influence on the founders, I think the primary influences were 1) the immediate exigencies of the day and trying to get a handle on the events that were happening and likely going to happen, 2) economics,3) trying to fashion functional governments and a framework for foreign relations/support, 4) political intrigues and egos, and 5) economics. Did I mention economics?"
Read mine and Tom's comments on Jon's post to Brad. I do not want to repeat it here.
Here is what Wiki says about Manegold:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manegold_of_Lautenbach
His Ad Gebehardum liber of 1085 was a comprehensive discussion of kingship, original and much commented on, and clarifying some of the political arguments most centrally used by the papal supporters;[5] it argued that kingship was an office from which the king could be deposed.[6] This work, dedicated to Gebhard of Salzburg, was intended to refute a polemic letter of Wenrich on behalf of Emperor Henry IV, written c.1080-1.[7] A strong supporter of Pope Gregory VII, Manegold shared with others of his time the view in political thought that secular rulers held their power on the basis of some kind of pact with the ruled.[8] Further, when the pact could be considered broken, the oath of allegiance could be considered null, a theory of resistance adapted to aristocratic arguments that had not long previously been topical in Saxony;[9] this theory had been documented in the 1082 Bellum Saxonicum of Bruno of Merseburg.[10] The argument that bad kings had frequently been deposed, typically with papal involvement, derived from a papal letter of 1075 to Hermann, bishop of Metz.[11] This book also contained an account of the life of Gregory VII, reflecting the Vita by John the Deacon of Gregory the Great; this shares details with chronicles of Berthold of Reichenau and Bernold of St Blasien, writing in the part of southern Germany in which Manegold had sheltered after having to leave Alsace.[12] Manegold's sources included St Paul, Jerome, Peter Damian and Bernold;[13] also Pseudo-Chrysostom's Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, for the way the 'pact' theory was expressed.[14] Along with others arguing from the same side, he used arguments from Cyprian, De unitate ecclesiae, in a version (of the fourth chapter) supporting papal primacy.[15]
He opposed the uncritical acceptance by Christian of the views of pagan classical writers. He was a critic of Macrobius, singling out for attack in geography the spherical earth theory of four isolated continents of Crates of Mallus on theological grounds.[16]
A good start.
Dallas Theological Seminary translated this and it is on google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWQ1dstUTLYC&dq=manegold+of+lautenbach&source=gbs_navlinks_s
I will try to read at least some of it and see if it is post worthy. If I get this coaching job it could be a while. I will go from being bored to having no time at all again.
Even though I don't go so far as Hogeland in dismissing the importance of religios influence on the founders, I think the primary influences were 1) the immediate exigencies of the day and trying to get a handle on the events that were happening and likely going to happen, 2) economics,3) trying to fashion functional governments and a framework for foreign relations/support, 4) political intrigues and egos, and 5) economics. Did I mention economics?
As you know, JRB I'm not a Protestant and hold no brief for it. Our joint study at American Creation has led me to the conclusion that one cannot tell the story of the Founding without Protestantism, and that includes Calvinism/Presbyterianism/Scotland and the English civil wars of the 1600s.
Even though starting with this Manegold fellow, or John of Salisbury about the nature of man and liberty and rights, etc., by the time we get to the American revolution, the idea of revolution is still revolutionary!
Much of the world today, Christian or Muslim or Hindoo or Buddhist or Confucian, even after political revolutions in their nation-states, still have a certain fatalism toward government and the powers-that-be.
I haven't read Mr. Hogeland's book yet, but his is a modern/marxist/material view of history [by his own admission as I gather it] and he appears to hold a brief for it. That may be the proper way to tell the story...or not.
At least in America, economic liberty was seen as part of the soul of liberty itself anyway. This doesn't get enough thought, methinks. The colonists didn't revolt because the economic system, even with Stamp Acts and the like asking requiring higher taxes, was draconian. Something deeper was going on.
In the end, I don't think people fight, suffer and die for mere money.
Kill, sure.
He quotes Tuck and Tierney extensively. I saw the Coke reference today which would tear to shreds at least some of what Chris Rodda writes about common law.
Heh heh. The attractiveness is that Jefferson didn't like the idea of a link between common law and Christianity. Joseph Story insisted there was one, and of course Coke and Blackstone still explicitly root English common law in natural law theory.
I read more of Amos's book today and I think I am going to take your advice and follow his sources and make my own arguments. His book is more of a reference manual than anything else.
A compass, not a map.
In my many years on the internet now, in which I have a PhD in dealing with the argumentative and the sophistic, I have never got anywhere defending any thoughts about anything except my own, checked and double-checked.
Even then, I'm wrong once every year or two.
The essay by Koester, however, suggests that the transition was more abrupt. He argues that the introduction of biblical ideas of creation and law into the Graeco-Roman world is chiefly responsible for the concept of “natural law.”
That sounds interesting.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_content&task=view&id=335&Itemid=259
Koester, Helmut. “The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought.” In Religions in Antiquity, ed. Jacob Neusner. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968.
TVD - In the end, I don't think people fight, suffer and die for mere money.
But for livelyhood I think so.
JRB, if it means the end of suffering, most men surrender to tyranny. Almost all men. This is the equation, this is the way of the world to this very day.
I wanted to look up the hagiography before spouting off, but if we can trust PBS as a mutually acceptable source, it went down like this:
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman..."---Thomas Paine, The American Crisis
http://www.pbs.org/ktca/liberty/tguide_3.html
On Christmas night 1776, the eve of the famous crossing of the Delaware River, Washington and his troops were encamped nine miles from Trenton on the banks of the Delaware preparing for a surprise offensive that, Washington hoped, would save his position as general and invigorate his troops. His soldiers were beyond weary. They did not have tents or proper winter clothing, the weather had turned bitterly cold and they were losing battle after battle. Washington’s poor military record had sparked open talk in Congress about replacing him.
Hoping to inspire soldiers and save his own job, Washington ordered all his officers to read Thomas Paine's "The American Crisis" to their troops.
Paine, the passionate pamphleteer, was embedded with Washington’s troops and had just written a now-famous essay on the back of a drumhead. The opening refrain had a stirring beat of its own: "These are the times that try men's souls. . ." The next day, Washington’s soldiers went on to win the Battle of Trenton. It was a small victory, but it changed the entire psychological makeup of the war.
And the next winter at Valley Forge was even worse, yet the Continental Army endured.
I think we're so suspicious of our Founding myths these days---often rightfully so, as the historical record turns out---and taught to be cynical and disbelieving about everything that we overlook that myths don't survive unless they're grounded in truth somehow.
Washington didn't chop down the cherry tree but he was known and loved as a straight-shooter. Nobody would tell the cherry tree myth about Thomas Jefferson, who was a snake.
So too, the Continental Army didn't fight for money or over taxes, they suffered and died for something more. Liberty, the liberty we enjoy to this day. That part is no myth.
I bookmarked the link Tom. A lot of good stuff there. I read part of the intro to the Manegold book and it seems that he was very concerned about the infusion of relativism that he thought a return to the study of the classics was bringing to Christianity. He actaully had no problem with philosophy he just wanted to make sure that it was not accepted uncritically. He was leery of scholastics that accepted it uncritically.
"So too, the Continental Army didn't fight for money or over taxes, they suffered and died for something more. Liberty, the liberty we enjoy to this day. That part is no myth."
I would agree with that. Atheists have a hard time believing that but when you believe in something higher than yourself and a higher goal you will face danger willingly.
Atheists have a hard time believing that but when you believe in something higher than yourself and a higher goal you will face danger willingly.
I don't think that anyone, including the atheist, that is even marginally cognizant of the history of the world has any misgivings about the the power of the religous/higher belief calling.
The thing that some Christians have a hard time believing is that atheists have a wide range of understanding/belief and that "atheists" does not define a monolithic block.
The appeal to special insider understanding/belief is called special pleading and is a logical fallacy.
I have no doubt that many during the revolution were inspired to act beyond the call of getting a paycheck. But to say that it didn't play a large roll indicates an ahistorical point of view.
How often was the continental army on the edge of revolt because the congrees didn't fork up the pay and provisions. How many troops did Washington loose because they had to get back to the farm or a trade so that they could assure their and their family's survival? Then there was the appeal to honor and glory. There were a multitude of motivations across the ranks.
"Heh heh. The attractiveness is that Jefferson didn't like the idea of a link between common law and Christianity. Joseph Story insisted there was one, and of course Coke and Blackstone still explicitly root English common law in natural law theory."
I read Chris's chapter she sent me and it seems, if I am reading her right and she is not off base, that Jefferson had more of a problem with Blackstones book being used because it was to simplitic than anything to do with common law itself. He was all in favor of Coke being taught at the University.
Chris can correct me if she wants. But this is the garbage that goes on. Barton's overall point is that he common law which is based a lot on canon law that proceeded it was influential at the founding. Which is true.
He uses some bs that really is a jumbled mess to prove his point about Blackstones commentary to prove it. Chris, rightly so, brings out the nuances of the argument and proves good chunks of his evidence wrong.
The problem is that his orginal statement is true he just used the wrong evidence. It was Coke that had a lot of influence. Or so it seems we will have to check and see for sure but the case I read seems sound.
So, what you have is everyone hitting the easy target refuting some of his facts and then claming victory when the real intellectual arguments are untouched. What a sham.
All I have is a bachelors degree and a decent self educated knowledge of Western and Church history and a very good knowledge of the Bible and theology and it only took me a year to sniff through this bs and see just how bankrupt some of these supposed rationalists really are.
It seems the only way to make them listen is to get the formal education. A work in progress. But now I know what to do. These discussions have helped with that.
"The thing that some Christians have a hard time believing is that atheists have a wide range of understanding/belief and that "atheists" does not define a monolithic block."
Since I have been both I can wholeheartedly agree. No offense meant. I am not even sure if you are an atheist or not but if you are no offense meant.
To the larger point, no one is denying that there were numerous factors in play. The rub is where to rank them. For the leaders, it seem obvious that they took into consideration the religious aspects and seem to have been banking on God taking their side as "Supreme Judge". To minimize that distorts the thoughts of the day.
I read the intro to the link to Manegold's book but it seems that his political theory is not in there but "Ad Gebehardum". It seems that he was a repentant Scholastic and possibly, though the author doubted it, the father of the School.
Seems that had quite a battle over Education and the merits of Greek thought. The book I linked is the metaphysical aspects of soul and creation and all that. The other book mentioned above was probably similar to Locke's Second Treatise in respect to Locke having a First Treatise with theological underpinnings and then a Second with more poltical theory in it.
There is no copy I can find on the internet. I am sure that jstor has it but I ain't paying all that.
I did find this from David Kopel that gives a good overview of the whole time period and its relation to the founding. Maybe we can start there and then try and find some of the relevant texts. Kopel mentions John of Salisbury too.
I think Tom may have linked this before in the comments section but here it is again:
http://www.davekopel.com/religion/catholic-second-amendment.pdf
The Kopel thing is powerful. It traces the entire story of the development of Scholasticism all the way to the Revolution. Seems Cicerro, Aristotle and Emperor Justian were instrumental. The latter seems to have kicked it all off and the other two gradually became more prominent.
Though he states that Aristotle was probably the most prominent in the end because Aquinas used him and Scholastic education was Catholic Education until the early 20th Century.
This goes through the whole Investiture Controversy and the power that the Holy Roman Emperors had over the Popes. Many people forget that Hitler was trying to establish a Third Reich. Which was the Third rise of the Holy Roman Empire. The first was pre-Investiture and the second was with Charles the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella.
He also goes into how the thought of Justin, Ciccero, and Aristotle as synthesized with Christian thought became Canon Law and how Canon Law influenced secular law like Commmon Law.
The Magna Carta was a part of this process.
I think I am going to start with him to outline the arguments and then we can get to the sources, if we can find them, and check him.
Amos overstates his case just like Manegold in reference to the dangers of pagan philosophy. The Greeks and Romans need to be given more credit than most Christians give them as far as political theory.
There is a balance and I think Amos and Manegold miss it. I think Kopel nails it.
At least at first glance that is. I think, despite the fact that he does a better job than most on this issue, Amos's soteriology clouds his political theory as well.
It is just as bad to label Greek thought as exclusively Christian as it is to label Christian or Christian/Greek thought as exclusively Enlightenment.
I think Christianity added some unique things but natural law and the wisdom of the ages did as well.
Amos kind of does the same thing Frazer does just from the other side in that he mixes Greek soteriology with political theory when one does not have to labels things as not compatible that are. How Manegoldian of him :)
THE MISSING LINK OF RELEVANCE!
Post a Comment