A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.
The good Reverend is entitled to his opinion; but his religion is NOT the political theology of the American Founding and does not well mix with American politics, certainly NOT the American Presidency.
I just posted on FB "Exploring Our Matrix" s post about the "conflct" of choosing a "moral candidate" or a "born again candidate".
Jeffress suggests that one's public policy is irrelavant in comparions to one's religious views??????? Does he believe that the President s to uphold the Constitution? Then, he must believe that there are to be no religious tests!!!
Well, I'm interested in Jeffress for two reasons. One, he is, like it or not, in the news. And two, he claims the American Founding.
People who believe Mormons aren't Christians have no business claiming the American Founding as "Christian" and that America was founded to be a "Christian Nation" in a way that would meet evangelical-fundamentalists strict understanding of the term.
Barton is starting to get more of a pass from me in his claiming Mormons can be Christians. As I noted before, it's more in line with the generously ecumenical "rational Christianity" of the American Founding.
Jeffress is strictly minor league, Jon. Stay in the bush leagues if you want.
I found the liberal Democrat prejudice against Mormons much more interesting and counterintutitive, what with their "open-mindedness" and tolerance and all. ;-)
I'm not surprised that the Pew survey showed Liberal Democrats at 41%, because Mormons, unlike Senator Harry Reid, are generally speaking staunch Republicans. I'd like to have seen what the response for how likely it would be for the various study groups to vote for Jon Huntsman as opposed to Mitt Romney.
The bottom line is that one shouldn't trust poll statistics without scrutinizing all of its methodology.
Oh, I think it's funny, that's all, Ray. There's no "methodological" problem here, but I agree about these stupid polls: Mitt Romney's our next president if he doesn't stick his foot in it.
. The American Quarrel: . It doesn't look as though this quarrel about the U.S.A. being founded as a Christian nation is ever going to go away. At least not for the generations now alive. And, here it is again as a problem with members of the Latter Day Saints' Church of Jesus Christ. . I wonder. Just exactly what specificity of Christianity is it that the Christian Nation people believe is the ground on which our Nation was founded? . Is it democracy itself that upsets them?
If by democracy you refer to secular institutions that support pluralism, diversity, individualism and gives voice to the many, then there is a distinct religious tension. At least with the more conservative and authoritarian strains of religion and religious institutions.
I'll have to see if I can backtrack to find the site but just a few days ago I cam across reference to early debates between religious leaders about this very question. Heck, even Pat Buchanan, a former presidential candidate and practicing Roman Catholic, said a while back that he would be fine with a Christian monarchy as long as it supported piety and tradition.
Some people poo poo religious leaders like the Reverend Jeffres but he's just one mouth among many actively pulling in the same direction. Add in those, like Buchanan, who tacitly approve of his actions, and I doubt that what he represents is harmless with respect to our democratic traditions. To that extent he is not inconsequential. But, he becomes less consequential when held accountable.
. If by democracy you refer to secular institutions that support pluralism, diversity, individualism and gives voice to the many, then there is a distinct religious tension. At least with the more conservative and authoritarian strains of religion and religious institutions.
In a way, yes; but, more specifically, by democracy I mean a political system where the authority is ultimately vested in the people...
Prior to Modernity, all authority was vested in a family type arangement headed up by the Church; father, mother, sisters, brothers, and the people as children. I think the Pope still refers to the people as "his children". . I hope you find the article.
To be fair to the Church in late antiquity and the early modern period, they had to share authority to greater and lesser extents with more secular rulers. But still, a very paternal model not prone to heralding the free voice of the people. Even in "Italy" there was great tension between Papal and civil authorities in more secular city-state republics.
. And, on the other hand, doesn't secularism begin with the idea of subjectivity? And, doesn't subjectivity relate to one's authority existing within his or her own being. And, isn't this the root of democracy? And, isn't that what the Catholic Hierarchy opposed? .
I've nixed a coffee-fueled longer response at this time, so, to the best of my understanding....
yes, yes, yes and yes.
I'd just say that it's not just the church or religion, it's any institution built on an appeal to an authoritarian worldview. If you need the structure and security of submitting to a greater authority (emperor, king, pope, deity, church, doctrine, secular dictator or religiously dictatorial government, etc.), then anything that challenges that view or the institution is a threat to be subdued or eliminated.
The rise of a humanistic worldview, giving heed to individualism and subjectivism, resulting from the rediscovery and dissemination of classical Greek and Roman texts into western Europe during the 14th to 16th centuries seems to have been one such threat that the traditional Church faced/faces.
Sorry, JRB: You can put Buchanan in with Jeffress in the who-gives-a-shit file.
The only reason he's anywhere is because MSNBC needs window-dressing and a nutball paleoconservative fills their bill nicely.
As for the medieval Church, one needs to take a closer look at how secular authority tried to hijack it as much as the other way around. "The divine right of kings" wasn't the Church's idea, it was James I's. [Yes, he of the KJV.]
. . "The divine right of kings" wasn't the Church's idea, it was James I's. . Of course the Church didn't come up with the idea of the divine right of kings. The idea undercut the position of absolute authority the Church claimed over the life of every single person. . . Drive by again, Tom. .
I think that's a good point, Phil. The Church tried, but it did fail.
But I think many people these days view "separation of church and state" as a fear of theocracy. But in colonial America, the problem they were running from was the crown owning the church, not the other way around.
The Puritan Revolution of the 1600s started when the crown tried to impose the Book of Common Prayer on the Calvinist/Presbyterians.
For those interested in the facts and stuff. It doesn't plug into today's Theocracy! Theocracy! narrative too well.
. What you write, Tom, and the Gallelei Galleleo, Copernicus, and a few others were involved as cases in point regarding the struggle for power between the church and secular society. King James I based his authority on the Christian Bible. . My question is about what Christian Nation people believe is the specific ground upon which our nation was founded. Prior to America's Founding the style of government was pretty much the family model--the Roman Catholic Church presents a perfect model of the family. Is not the Pope known as PaPa? Our Constitution puts a major challenge out against that model. I think that pretty much destroys the Christian Nation ideas which would require a ruler put in place according to Christian doctrine. .
I think that pretty much destroys the Christian Nation ideas which would require a ruler put in place according to Christian doctrine.
This is what you tend to argue is what "they} are up to, Phil. It was supposed to happen during Dubya but didn't. Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy is a laughable relic from that time and of that argument.
As a matter of fact, the one thing that unified the Founding era Christians was Protestantism and hatred of papism. Which makes David Barton's claim of clergy at the Founding so laughable---the clergy are more noticeable in their absence than presence.
Even the Puritans banned clergy from gov't, and Tennessee [I think] still has a law on the books banning clergy from office!
[The Puritans also did away with ecclesiastical courts as too papist although they persisted in England for another 150 yrs. I assume you know what they are: I wrote about them awhile back here.]
So I'm sorry, Phil, I really don't know what you're getting at. The biggest religious controversy of the mid-1700s was about the British crown appointing Anglican bishops in America. Our anti-papist streak is a mile wide and 2 miles deep. Hell, JFK had to promise not to let the Pope run America! Famous speech.
And do you think Catholics want to be ruled by a Protestant pope like Pat Robertson? No way, Jose.
. Hey, Tom. .. Here's something I wrote in another conversation a few days ago:
"Modernity has certainly upset the apple cart of what passed for absolute truth and authority. And, those people still holding on to the positivity of what came before are unsettled. The best they can do is to dig in their heels and believe the stuff they spread around. They really are not interested in taking positions that might lead to a better future for everyone. They see Modernity as an assault on the positive authority that governed Western Civilization prior to the Enlightenment and they see the Enlightenment as a deviation from absolute truth. And, so it is as far as what was accepted as the absolute prior to men like Galilei Galileo and Copernicus. Christian Protestantism brought an end to the absolute authority of the Roman Catholic Church. And, Protestantism continues today."
. So, you see, I agee with you on your point about Protestantism.
Sorry, JRB: You can put Buchanan in with Jeffress in the who-gives-a-shit file.
Buchanan was not central to the point I was making.
...how secular authority tried to hijack it as much as the other way around.
My point was exactly that authoritarian power centers existed (and still exist). I don't believe that I made mention of who was stronger than whom or who was making power-sharing alliances with whom at any given time.
As to the Divine Right of Kings theory, is this the theory that temporal princes and kings are due submission by Christians because they derive their authority from an appointment by God. And that subjection to the princes necessarily proceeds from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion? And that even wicked and infidel kings and emperors are due submission? And that those who resist authority resist the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation.
Maybe there's another way to phrase the theory but is this close? I'm trying to get my bearings on "'The divine right of kings' wasn't the Church's idea...".
To be honest, I think that Romney could very easily use this recent controversy to his advantage. There is a great book out that I reviewed not long ago entitled, "The Making of a Catholic President", which basically illustrates how JFK turned all of the anti-Catholic scare to his advantage. I could very easily see Romney doing the same thing in 2012. After all, as Tom points out, the Dems will look like the "intolerant" ones with their 41%.
. Brad... . Don't you realize that the 41% of Democratic voters are associating Mormon with Romney? They don't want a Republican to be president and that's why they don't want a Mormon in the Whitehouse.
The Republicans opposed to Romney don't want him because he is a Mormon. . Two very distinct classifications.
Ok...whatever, Pinky. I am sure that the church's stance on social issues has NOTHING to do with it either. Sorry, your "classifications" don't hold up.
I looked at the Pew web article and the available PDF report and I have two questions regarding this sentence, "Liberal Democrats stand out, with 41% saying they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate." and the accompanying table:
1) The table indicates "Democrats" and does not distinguish between liberal or conservative. Where does the description "liberal" come from?
2) The table indicates that 31% of Democrats were less likely to vote for a Mormon. Where does 41% come from?
Is this bias and/or sloppiness or am I missing something?
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest evangelical denomination. And it has much influence on other evangelicals. Therefore, I would not dismiss the impact that Jeffress might have.
Secondly, how and why has "faith" become so radicalized, that is, politicized this year? Does it just seem that way because of oppositional forces, as the Religious Right has been active for many decades?
Are the oppositonal forces the question of naturalism, evolution, and the disciplines, versus, Scripture, Tradition, and Experience?
Can we replace Scripture with naturalism? and Tradition with the disciplines, and Experience with evolution? Instead of supernaturalism there is nature (text); and instead of Tradition there are is the Academy (disciplines); and instead of a Personal Experience there is evolution, or a journey n life!
Each of these transitions are MAJOR obstacles to fundamentalist, or evangelicals!!!
. My guess is that Romney will be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. He and Huntsman are the only two making sense to any Democrat at all. Except for Ron Paul, the others are a joke with the way they pander to the extreme right; but, anyone who knows anything about political campaigning understands the strategy involved. Theory has it that the further the electorate is pulled to the extreme in either direction, the more the center also moves in that direction. The extreme left is too undesirable to do much good.
. So, it looks like the Republican strategy is to pull as many voters to the center based on the ideology of the crazies in either party. By the time the election is run, their hope is that they will get a lot of votes that otherwise would go for Obama. . Romney could win. I think the majority of America even feels safe with Romney at the helm. .
Also too, I know that a lot of culture warriors will get a lot of satisfaction in portraying "liberal" Democrats as religious bigots but there are, of course, other possible explanations.
"Liberal" Democrats may associate Mormon with the most recent and highly visible efforts of the Church to block same-gender marriage. If so, most liberal Democrats (with many tending to be liberal Christians), who may have no beef with the Mormon religion as an expression of religious values, would likely see that voting for a Mormon in the political arena would be voting against their political interests.
Of course there's also the chance that all , or at least 41% of, liberal Democrats are mobilizing to round up and send Mormons to Obama camps for religious and political retraining. And, let's not forget their penchant for eating babies (I don't blame anyone for not knowing this given the current epistemological crisis).
Phil, As has been stated on this blog before, neo-cons have the power, as they are the "movers and shakers" in the Republican party, though they might give 'tidbits' or a 'head nod" to others outside the neo-con "in group". This is what frustrates the Tea Partiers and the flea partiers.
So, as Tom said, Mitt Romney might be the nominated candidate, though Cain has come up in the polls with the Tea Parters.
Personally, I think that Cain has an advantage over Romney in that he is no politcal insdier. He is African American, which undermines a basic argument in the Democratic Party against the Republicans about minorities. And Cain has a GREAT resume that shows he is a hard worker, understands the dynamics of business.
But, if the establishment insist on "taking a chance" on Romney when there is such opposition in the evangelical camp, we can ONLY hope that they will vote holding their nose (this is what has been expressed to me about Romney). Therefore, let's rally the troops and try to unite the Party once the nominee gets nominated!
JRB, if it's 31%, my sloppiness for taking the word of the article. Since I'm not all stoked about it and put it down as a wry and ironic observation on the party of "open-mindedness," it really wasn't worth double-checking. 31% makes the same point.
But make no mistake, the Dem Party does include most of those with a hostility to strongly-held religious belief. It cannot all be explained away.
As we see, for some, prejudices are fine if we agree with them.
JRB, if it's 31%, my sloppiness for taking the word of the article.
I wasn't questioning you on bias and/or sloppiness, I was questioning the article which reflected the available PDF report - I was questioning, not declaring, if Pew got it wrong by pointing out an apparent contradiction (or two) in their work.
For the record, wishing not to be accidentally associated with the implication of the "some", I was not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. I was trying to be a bit critical of the citation - having followed your link and read it.
I guess I should throw in a "all Republicans eat babies" line just to be fair and balanced in the tongue-in-cheek department....but then, we all know that that's actually true.
Now, as to my question on the Divine Right of Kings Theory......
And, if you're around KOI, what was the Teirney book you were working with awhile back?
I appreciate the thoroughness, JRB. As I said, it was a wry comment more than a major thesis and 31% works nearly as well.
As for Tierney, that was Joe's thing---I just pointed him there. What I do know that even scholars can't approach him very well pro or con because few know medieval Latin. [Needless to say, I also think those invested in secularism and crediting the Enlightenment don't really want to hear his thesis, that rights and liberty have religious roots and Catholic ones at that.]
As for divine right of kings, I should have done a post ages ago. Basically it centers around Sir Robert Filmer's defense of it in Patriarcha, which was a response to the Jesuit Cardinal [St.] Robert Bellarmine's argument against divine right. [James I had also publicly burned Jesuit Father Francisco Suarez' "De Fide", Suarez being Hugo Grotius' main source for his work in natural law.]
Locke's First Treatise is actually a response to Patriarcha, as was Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government. So we have the Jesuits there first, followed by Filmer, followed by Sidney and Locke, to whom so much credit is given.
Sidney, Chap 2:
IN the first lines of his [Filmer's] book he seems to denounce war against mankind, endeavouring to overthrow the principle of liberty in which God created us, and which includes the chief advantages of the life we enjoy, as well as the greatest helps towards the felicity, that is the end of our hopes in the other.
To this end he absurdly imputes to the School divines that which was taken up by them as a common notion, written in the heart of every man, denied by none, but such as were degenerated into beasts, from whence they might prove such points as of themselves were less evident.[1] Thus did Euclid lay down certain axioms, which none could deny that did not renounce common sense, from whence he drew the proofs of such propositions as were less obvious to the understanding; and they may with as much reason be accused of paganism, who say that the whole is greater than a part, that two halfs make the whole, or that a straight line is the shortest way from point to point, as to say, that they who in politicks lay such foundations, as have been taken up by Schoolmen and others as undeniable truths, do therefore follow them, or have any regard to their authority.
Tho the Schoolmen were corrupt, they were neither stupid nor unlearned: They could not but see that which all men saw, nor lay more approved foundations, than, that man is naturally free; that he cannot justly be deprived of that liberty without cause, and that he doth not resign it, or any part of it, unless it be in consideration of a greater good, which he proposes to himself.
We see Sidney here trying to deny the "School divines" [School = Schoolmen, the Thomists---as in "Aquinas"---the Catholic Scholastic philosophers such as Suarez; divines = clergy] the credit for liberty and rights, as though it were common knowledge, but Filmer certainly did credit them.
And there you have it. For an example of how the king didn't have "divine right" before that, look at what the pope did to Henry II for killing Thomas a Becket, and also the Investiture controversies of the Middle Ages. The church and state were as often at odds as in cohoots. In fact, the church served as the only bulwark against state power.
Aw, JRB, I wuz hoping for a cyberkiss for taking the time to type that all out for you, down here in comments where few will read it.
I guess I can look forward to yr rebuttal anywayz, but I think the above is solid and hope you'll acknowledge it as such at the proper time. Because that's how it went down.
[Needless to say, I also think those invested in secularism and crediting the Enlightenment don't really want to hear his thesis, that rights and liberty have religious roots and Catholic ones at that.]
Until I have a chance to read Tierney I'll assume that you are right about his thesis. That being the case, I would be more than happy to accept his thesis if it weren't wrong.
I will buy that secularism didn't arise strictly from the Enlightenment, but has a much longer history in the west dependent on how one defines "secular" and "secularism".
As to the emperor/king/prince deriving their authority via God (the Christian God), the Church seems to have a long history of embracing the notion and the notion that the people were absolutely due to submit regardless of abuse.
Pope Gelasius (5th century) advanced a theory of the separation of church and state while advancing the notion that the secular ruler and the church leaders both derived their authority from the divine will (cite):
In the ancient Roman empire before it became Christian the emperor expected to control religion, but when Constantine became a Christian he joined a religious body with existing leaders, the bishops, who were believed to be the successors to the Apostles, those whom Christ, who was God, had sent to preach his message to mankind. The bishops, as God's representatives, could not accept a position of subordination in religious matters to the emperor; rather, they expected him to submit to their instruction. On the other hand they did not claim political superiority. For a long time the accepted doctrine of the Church was that summed up in a letter of Pope Gelasius to the Emperor Anastasius in A.D.494:
- "Two there are, august emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, the sacred authority of the priesthood and the royal power... In the order of religion, in matters concerning the reception and right administration of the heavenly sacraments, you ought to submit yourself rather than rule... The bishops themselves, recognizing that the imperial office was conferred on you by divine disposition, obey your laws so far as the sphere of public order is concerned. (Tierney, pp. 13-4.)"
Historians call this the Gelasian theory: that emperors and kings on the one hand, and popes and bishops on the other, have their distinct spheres of authority and derive power not from one another but directly from God; in secular matters the clergy obey secular rulers, in religious matters the secular rulers obey the clergy. In the thirteenth century, however, some popes, notably Innocent III and Innocent IV, claimed to have a superiority over secular rulers, at least in certain circumstances.
Marsilius of Padua in his 1324 Defensor Pacis made a completely secular argument that the "effective source of law is the people" and grounds his reasoning in the authority of Aristotle:
Now we declare according to the truth and on the authority of Aristotle that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment; by the prevailing part of the people I mean that part of the community by whom the law is made, whether the whole body of citizens or the main part do this or commit it to some person or persons to be done; these last are not nor can be the real law-making power, but can only act according to instructions as to subject-matter and time, and by the authority of the primal law-making power. On the authority of Aristotle by a citizen I mean him who has a part in the civil community, either in the government, or the council, or the judiciary, according to his position."
For his troubles expounding democracy (even within the realm of the Church), he was branded a heretic by the Church and spent the rest of his life in the court of Louis the Bavarian (aka Ludwig, AKA Louis IV, AKA King of the Romans).
It still seems to me, and I've said it before, the idea of civil political rights and early notions of liberty being grounded in the the people (consistent with founding thought), regardless of later modifications and uses, have their roots in pre-Church Greece and Rome. The Church has been historically resistant to the idea of liberty if it meant disobedience to the established ruling secular authority in the sense of a emperor, king or prince, or if it meant disobedience to the Church. The Church traditionally taught a narrow path of truth.
Of course I guess it depends on how you define rights and liberty.
Clement XIII 1766 11 25 - "They preach with a detestable and insane freedom of thought that the origin and nature of our soul is mortal although it was created in the image of the supreme creator little lower than the angels."
- "For accursed men who have given themselves over to myths and who do not uphold the stronghold of Sion from all sides vomit the poison of serpents from their hearts for the ruin of the Christian people by the contagious plague of books which almost overwhelms us. They pollute the pure waters of belief and destroy the foundations of religion.
Pope Gregory XVI 1832 8 15 Marari Voss - "Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty."
" This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say."
Of course, as I've said, I'll have to read Tierney and get back.
39 comments:
I just posted on FB "Exploring Our Matrix" s post about the "conflct" of choosing a "moral candidate" or a "born again candidate".
Jeffress suggests that one's public policy is irrelavant in comparions to one's religious views??????? Does he believe that the President s to uphold the Constitution? Then, he must believe that there are to be no religious tests!!!
For the record, according to the Pew poll:
Evangelicals "less likely" to vote for a Mormon: 34%
Liberal Democrats: 41%
That's the sort of stuff "they" don't tell us in the news.
Overall figures:
Democrats : 27%
Independents: 19%
Republicans: 18%
I don't blame Mr. Rowe for not knowing this. Few do, in our epistemological crisis. But them's the facts, before we throw any more grenades.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/06/evangelicals_le.html
[Do you think we'll get a post or big news reports about how religiously bigoted liberal Democrats are? Heh heh.]
Well, I'm interested in Jeffress for two reasons. One, he is, like it or not, in the news. And two, he claims the American Founding.
People who believe Mormons aren't Christians have no business claiming the American Founding as "Christian" and that America was founded to be a "Christian Nation" in a way that would meet evangelical-fundamentalists strict understanding of the term.
Barton is starting to get more of a pass from me in his claiming Mormons can be Christians. As I noted before, it's more in line with the generously ecumenical "rational Christianity" of the American Founding.
.
It's plain most participants here do not understand Evangelical Christians, let alone the core Fundamentalists.
.
I got an idea Angie does.
.
Jeffress is strictly minor league, Jon. Stay in the bush leagues if you want.
I found the liberal Democrat prejudice against Mormons much more interesting and counterintutitive, what with their "open-mindedness" and tolerance and all. ;-)
41 per cent!
Tom, I found the link you mentioned, but I had to add a html after the dot. Here's the 6/3/2011 article: Evangelicals: Less Likely to Vote for Gay or Mormon Candidates.
I'm not surprised that the Pew survey showed Liberal Democrats at 41%, because Mormons, unlike Senator Harry Reid, are generally speaking staunch Republicans. I'd like to have seen what the response for how likely it would be for the various study groups to vote for Jon Huntsman as opposed to Mitt Romney.
The bottom line is that one shouldn't trust poll statistics without scrutinizing all of its methodology.
Oh, I think it's funny, that's all, Ray. There's no "methodological" problem here, but I agree about these stupid polls: Mitt Romney's our next president if he doesn't stick his foot in it.
.
The American Quarrel:
.
It doesn't look as though this quarrel about the U.S.A. being founded as a Christian nation is ever going to go away. At least not for the generations now alive. And, here it is again as a problem with members of the Latter Day Saints' Church of Jesus Christ.
.
I wonder. Just exactly what specificity of Christianity is it that the Christian Nation people believe is the ground on which our Nation was founded?
.
Is it democracy itself that upsets them?
.
Is it democracy itself that upsets them?
If by democracy you refer to secular institutions that support pluralism, diversity, individualism and gives voice to the many, then there is a distinct religious tension. At least with the more conservative and authoritarian strains of religion and religious institutions.
I'll have to see if I can backtrack to find the site but just a few days ago I cam across reference to early debates between religious leaders about this very question. Heck, even Pat Buchanan, a former presidential candidate and practicing Roman Catholic, said a while back that he would be fine with a Christian monarchy as long as it supported piety and tradition.
Some people poo poo religious leaders like the Reverend Jeffres but he's just one mouth among many actively pulling in the same direction. Add in those, like Buchanan, who tacitly approve of his actions, and I doubt that what he represents is harmless with respect to our democratic traditions. To that extent he is not inconsequential. But, he becomes less consequential when held accountable.
.
If by democracy you refer to secular institutions that support pluralism, diversity, individualism and gives voice to the many, then there is a distinct religious tension. At least with the more conservative and authoritarian strains of religion and religious institutions.
In a way, yes; but, more specifically, by democracy I mean a political system where the authority is ultimately vested in the people...
Prior to Modernity, all authority was vested in a family type arangement headed up by the Church; father, mother, sisters, brothers, and the people as children. I think the Pope still refers to the people as "his children".
.
I hope you find the article.
.
To be fair to the Church in late antiquity and the early modern period, they had to share authority to greater and lesser extents with more secular rulers. But still, a very paternal model not prone to heralding the free voice of the people. Even in "Italy" there was great tension between Papal and civil authorities in more secular city-state republics.
.
And, on the other hand, doesn't secularism begin with the idea of subjectivity? And, doesn't subjectivity relate to one's authority existing within his or her own being. And, isn't this the root of democracy? And, isn't that what the Catholic Hierarchy opposed?
.
.
I've nixed a coffee-fueled longer response at this time, so, to the best of my understanding....
yes, yes, yes and yes.
I'd just say that it's not just the church or religion, it's any institution built on an appeal to an authoritarian worldview. If you need the structure and security of submitting to a greater authority (emperor, king, pope, deity, church, doctrine, secular dictator or religiously dictatorial government, etc.), then anything that challenges that view or the institution is a threat to be subdued or eliminated.
The rise of a humanistic worldview, giving heed to individualism and subjectivism, resulting from the rediscovery and dissemination of classical Greek and Roman texts into western Europe during the 14th to 16th centuries seems to have been one such threat that the traditional Church faced/faces.
Sorry, JRB: You can put Buchanan in with Jeffress in the who-gives-a-shit file.
The only reason he's anywhere is because MSNBC needs window-dressing and a nutball paleoconservative fills their bill nicely.
As for the medieval Church, one needs to take a closer look at how secular authority tried to hijack it as much as the other way around. "The divine right of kings" wasn't the Church's idea, it was James I's. [Yes, he of the KJV.]
.
. "The divine right of kings" wasn't the Church's idea, it was James I's.
.
Of course the Church didn't come up with the idea of the divine right of kings. The idea undercut the position of absolute authority the Church claimed over the life of every single person.
.
.
Drive by again, Tom.
.
I think that's a good point, Phil. The Church tried, but it did fail.
But I think many people these days view "separation of church and state" as a fear of theocracy. But in colonial America, the problem they were running from was the crown owning the church, not the other way around.
The Puritan Revolution of the 1600s started when the crown tried to impose the Book of Common Prayer on the Calvinist/Presbyterians.
For those interested in the facts and stuff. It doesn't plug into today's Theocracy! Theocracy! narrative too well.
.
What you write, Tom, and the Gallelei Galleleo, Copernicus, and a few others were involved as cases in point regarding the struggle for power between the church and secular society. King James I based his authority on the Christian Bible.
.
My question is about what Christian Nation people believe is the specific ground upon which our nation was founded. Prior to America's Founding the style of government was pretty much the family model--the Roman Catholic Church presents a perfect model of the family. Is not the Pope known as PaPa? Our Constitution puts a major challenge out against that model. I think that pretty much destroys the Christian Nation ideas which would require a ruler put in place according to Christian doctrine.
.
.
I think that pretty much destroys the Christian Nation ideas which would require a ruler put in place according to Christian doctrine.
This is what you tend to argue is what "they} are up to, Phil. It was supposed to happen during Dubya but didn't. Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy is a laughable relic from that time and of that argument.
As a matter of fact, the one thing that unified the Founding era Christians was Protestantism and hatred of papism. Which makes David Barton's claim of clergy at the Founding so laughable---the clergy are more noticeable in their absence than presence.
Even the Puritans banned clergy from gov't, and Tennessee [I think] still has a law on the books banning clergy from office!
[The Puritans also did away with ecclesiastical courts as too papist although they persisted in England for another 150 yrs. I assume you know what they are: I wrote about them awhile back here.]
So I'm sorry, Phil, I really don't know what you're getting at. The biggest religious controversy of the mid-1700s was about the British crown appointing Anglican bishops in America. Our anti-papist streak is a mile wide and 2 miles deep. Hell, JFK had to promise not to let the Pope run America! Famous speech.
And do you think Catholics want to be ruled by a Protestant pope like Pat Robertson? No way, Jose.
.
Hey, Tom.
..
Here's something I wrote in another conversation a few days ago:
"Modernity has certainly upset the apple cart of what passed for absolute truth and authority. And, those people still holding on to the positivity of what came before are unsettled. The best they can do is to dig in their heels and believe the stuff they spread around. They really are not interested in taking positions that might lead to a better future for everyone. They see Modernity as an assault on the positive authority that governed Western Civilization prior to the Enlightenment and they see the Enlightenment as a deviation from absolute truth. And, so it is as far as what was accepted as the absolute prior to men like Galilei Galileo and Copernicus. Christian Protestantism brought an end to the absolute authority of the Roman Catholic Church. And, Protestantism continues today."
.
So, you see, I agee with you on your point about Protestantism.
.
Sorry, JRB: You can put Buchanan in with Jeffress in the who-gives-a-shit file.
Buchanan was not central to the point I was making.
...how secular authority tried to hijack it as much as the other way around.
My point was exactly that authoritarian power centers existed (and still exist). I don't believe that I made mention of who was stronger than whom or who was making power-sharing alliances with whom at any given time.
As to the Divine Right of Kings theory, is this the theory that temporal princes and kings are due submission by Christians because they derive their authority from an appointment by God. And that subjection to the princes necessarily proceeds from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion? And that even wicked and infidel kings and emperors are due submission? And that those who resist authority resist the ordinances of God; and those who resist bring on themselves condemnation.
Maybe there's another way to phrase the theory but is this close? I'm trying to get my bearings on "'The divine right of kings' wasn't the Church's idea...".
To be honest, I think that Romney could very easily use this recent controversy to his advantage. There is a great book out that I reviewed not long ago entitled, "The Making of a Catholic President", which basically illustrates how JFK turned all of the anti-Catholic scare to his advantage. I could very easily see Romney doing the same thing in 2012. After all, as Tom points out, the Dems will look like the "intolerant" ones with their 41%.
Sorry, that was a bit too political.
.
Brad...
.
Don't you realize that the 41% of Democratic voters are associating Mormon with Romney? They don't want a Republican to be president and that's why they don't want a Mormon in the Whitehouse.
The Republicans opposed to Romney don't want him because he is a Mormon.
.
Two very distinct classifications.
.
Ok...whatever, Pinky. I am sure that the church's stance on social issues has NOTHING to do with it either. Sorry, your "classifications" don't hold up.
Liberal Democrats: 41%
I looked at the Pew web article and the available PDF report and I have two questions regarding this sentence, "Liberal Democrats stand out, with 41% saying they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate." and the accompanying table:
1) The table indicates "Democrats" and does not distinguish between liberal or conservative. Where does the description "liberal" come from?
2) The table indicates that 31% of Democrats were less likely to vote for a Mormon. Where does 41% come from?
Is this bias and/or sloppiness or am I missing something?
Nice thoughts, everyone.
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest evangelical denomination. And it has much influence on other evangelicals. Therefore, I would not dismiss the impact that Jeffress might have.
Secondly, how and why has "faith" become so radicalized, that is, politicized this year? Does it just seem that way because of oppositional forces, as the Religious Right has been active for many decades?
Are the oppositonal forces the question of naturalism, evolution, and the disciplines, versus, Scripture, Tradition, and Experience?
Can we replace Scripture with naturalism? and Tradition with the disciplines, and Experience with evolution? Instead of supernaturalism there is nature (text); and instead of Tradition there are is the Academy (disciplines); and instead of a Personal Experience there is evolution, or a journey n life!
Each of these transitions are MAJOR obstacles to fundamentalist, or evangelicals!!!
Of course, when Reason is engaged, instead of Experience or Authority, then there is a wholistic transition to personal reality.
.
My guess is that Romney will be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. He and Huntsman are the only two making sense to any Democrat at all. Except for Ron Paul, the others are a joke with the way they pander to the extreme right; but, anyone who knows anything about political campaigning understands the strategy involved. Theory has it that the further the electorate is pulled to the extreme in either direction, the more the center also moves in that direction. The extreme left is too undesirable to do much good.
.
.
.
So, it looks like the Republican strategy is to pull as many voters to the center based on the ideology of the crazies in either party. By the time the election is run, their hope is that they will get a lot of votes that otherwise would go for Obama.
.
Romney could win. I think the majority of America even feels safe with Romney at the helm.
.
Liberal Democrats: 41%
Also too, I know that a lot of culture warriors will get a lot of satisfaction in portraying "liberal" Democrats as religious bigots but there are, of course, other possible explanations.
"Liberal" Democrats may associate Mormon with the most recent and highly visible efforts of the Church to block same-gender marriage. If so, most liberal Democrats (with many tending to be liberal Christians), who may have no beef with the Mormon religion as an expression of religious values, would likely see that voting for a Mormon in the political arena would be voting against their political interests.
Of course there's also the chance that all , or at least 41% of, liberal Democrats are mobilizing to round up and send Mormons to Obama camps for religious and political retraining. And, let's not forget their penchant for eating babies (I don't blame anyone for not knowing this given the current epistemological crisis).
Phil,
As has been stated on this blog before, neo-cons have the power, as they are the "movers and shakers" in the Republican party, though they might give 'tidbits' or a 'head nod" to others outside the neo-con "in group". This is what frustrates the Tea Partiers and the flea partiers.
So, as Tom said, Mitt Romney might be the nominated candidate, though Cain has come up in the polls with the Tea Parters.
Personally, I think that Cain has an advantage over Romney in that he is no politcal insdier. He is African American, which undermines a basic argument in the Democratic Party against the Republicans about minorities. And Cain has a GREAT resume that shows he is a hard worker, understands the dynamics of business.
But, if the establishment insist on "taking a chance" on Romney when there is such opposition in the evangelical camp, we can ONLY hope that they will vote holding their nose (this is what has been expressed to me about Romney). Therefore, let's rally the troops and try to unite the Party once the nominee gets nominated!
JRB, if it's 31%, my sloppiness for taking the word of the article. Since I'm not all stoked about it and put it down as a wry and ironic observation on the party of "open-mindedness," it really wasn't worth double-checking. 31% makes the same point.
But make no mistake, the Dem Party does include most of those with a hostility to strongly-held religious belief. It cannot all be explained away.
As we see, for some, prejudices are fine if we agree with them.
JRB, if it's 31%, my sloppiness for taking the word of the article.
I wasn't questioning you on bias and/or sloppiness, I was questioning the article which reflected the available PDF report - I was questioning, not declaring, if Pew got it wrong by pointing out an apparent contradiction (or two) in their work.
For the record, wishing not to be accidentally associated with the implication of the "some", I was not agreeing or disagreeing with anything. I was trying to be a bit critical of the citation - having followed your link and read it.
I guess I should throw in a "all Republicans eat babies" line just to be fair and balanced in the tongue-in-cheek department....but then, we all know that that's actually true.
Now, as to my question on the Divine Right of Kings Theory......
And, if you're around KOI, what was the Teirney book you were working with awhile back?
...having followed your link and read it.
And having gone to the original Pew page and read their work. Just to be clear.
I appreciate the thoroughness, JRB. As I said, it was a wry comment more than a major thesis and 31% works nearly as well.
As for Tierney, that was Joe's thing---I just pointed him there. What I do know that even scholars can't approach him very well pro or con because few know medieval Latin. [Needless to say, I also think those invested in secularism and crediting the Enlightenment don't really want to hear his thesis, that rights and liberty have religious roots and Catholic ones at that.]
As for divine right of kings, I should have done a post ages ago. Basically it centers around Sir Robert Filmer's defense of it in Patriarcha, which was a response to the Jesuit Cardinal [St.] Robert Bellarmine's argument against divine right. [James I had also publicly burned Jesuit Father Francisco Suarez' "De Fide", Suarez being Hugo Grotius' main source for his work in natural law.]
Locke's First Treatise is actually a response to Patriarcha, as was Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government. So we have the Jesuits there first, followed by Filmer, followed by Sidney and Locke, to whom so much credit is given.
Sidney, Chap 2:
IN the first lines of his [Filmer's] book he seems to denounce war against mankind, endeavouring to overthrow the principle of liberty in which God created us, and which includes the chief advantages of the life we enjoy, as well as the greatest helps towards the felicity, that is the end of our hopes in the other.
To this end he absurdly imputes to the School divines that which was taken up by them as a common notion, written in the heart of every man, denied by none, but such as were degenerated into beasts, from whence they might prove such points as of themselves were less evident.[1] Thus did Euclid lay down certain axioms, which none could deny that did not renounce common sense, from whence he drew the proofs of such propositions as were less obvious to the understanding; and they may with as much reason be accused of paganism, who say that the whole is greater than a part, that two halfs make the whole, or that a straight line is the shortest way from point to point, as to say, that they who in politicks lay such foundations, as have been taken up by Schoolmen and others as undeniable truths, do therefore follow them, or have any regard to their authority.
Tho the Schoolmen were corrupt, they were neither stupid nor unlearned: They could not but see that which all men saw, nor lay more approved foundations, than, that man is naturally free; that he cannot justly be deprived of that liberty without cause, and that he doth not resign it, or any part of it, unless it be in consideration of a greater good, which he proposes to himself.
We see Sidney here trying to deny the "School divines" [School = Schoolmen, the Thomists---as in "Aquinas"---the Catholic Scholastic philosophers such as Suarez; divines = clergy] the credit for liberty and rights, as though it were common knowledge, but Filmer certainly did credit them.
And there you have it. For an example of how the king didn't have "divine right" before that, look at what the pope did to Henry II for killing Thomas a Becket, and also the Investiture controversies of the Middle Ages. The church and state were as often at odds as in cohoots. In fact, the church served as the only bulwark against state power.
Aw, JRB, I wuz hoping for a cyberkiss for taking the time to type that all out for you, down here in comments where few will read it.
I guess I can look forward to yr rebuttal anywayz, but I think the above is solid and hope you'll acknowledge it as such at the proper time. Because that's how it went down.
I was in the backwoods of Arkansas with a kayak for the last few days, so, a belated kisses and hugs.
I will mount a major rebuttal/attack* as soon as I catch up on some work work.
* by rebuttal/attack I mean that I do have a question or two.
U OK, JRB.
[Needless to say, I also think those invested in secularism and crediting the Enlightenment don't really want to hear his thesis, that rights and liberty have religious roots and Catholic ones at that.]
Until I have a chance to read Tierney I'll assume that you are right about his thesis. That being the case, I would be more than happy to accept his thesis if it weren't wrong.
I will buy that secularism didn't arise strictly from the Enlightenment, but has a much longer history in the west dependent on how one defines "secular" and "secularism".
As to the emperor/king/prince deriving their authority via God (the Christian God), the Church seems to have a long history of embracing the notion and the notion that the people were absolutely due to submit regardless of abuse.
Pope Gelasius (5th century) advanced a theory of the separation of church and state while advancing the notion that the secular ruler and the church leaders both derived their authority from the divine will (cite):
In the ancient Roman empire before it became Christian the emperor expected to control religion, but when Constantine became a Christian he joined a religious body with existing leaders, the bishops, who were believed to be the successors to the Apostles, those whom Christ, who was God, had sent to preach his message to mankind. The bishops, as God's representatives, could not accept a position of subordination in religious matters to the emperor; rather, they expected him to submit to their instruction. On the other hand they did not claim political superiority. For a long time the accepted doctrine of the Church was that summed up in a letter of Pope Gelasius to the Emperor Anastasius in A.D.494:
- "Two there are, august emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, the sacred authority of the priesthood and the royal power... In the order of religion, in matters concerning the reception and right administration of the heavenly sacraments, you ought to submit yourself rather than rule... The bishops themselves, recognizing that the imperial office was conferred on you by divine disposition, obey your laws so far as the sphere of public order is concerned. (Tierney, pp. 13-4.)"
Historians call this the Gelasian theory: that emperors and kings on the one hand, and popes and bishops on the other, have their distinct spheres of authority and derive power not from one another but directly from God; in secular matters the clergy obey secular rulers, in religious matters the secular rulers obey the clergy. In the thirteenth century, however, some popes, notably Innocent III and Innocent IV, claimed to have a superiority over secular rulers, at least in certain circumstances.
(cont)
Marsilius of Padua in his 1324 Defensor Pacis made a completely secular argument that the "effective source of law is the people" and grounds his reasoning in the authority of Aristotle:
Now we declare according to the truth and on the authority of Aristotle that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment; by the prevailing part of the people I mean that part of the community by whom the law is made, whether the whole body of citizens or the main part do this or commit it to some person or persons to be done; these last are not nor can be the real law-making power, but can only act according to instructions as to subject-matter and time, and by the authority of the primal law-making power. On the authority of Aristotle by a citizen I mean him who has a part in the civil community, either in the government, or the council, or the judiciary, according to his position."
For his troubles expounding democracy (even within the realm of the Church), he was branded a heretic by the Church and spent the rest of his life in the court of Louis the Bavarian (aka Ludwig, AKA Louis IV, AKA King of the Romans).
It still seems to me, and I've said it before, the idea of civil political rights and early notions of liberty being grounded in the the people (consistent with founding thought), regardless of later modifications and uses, have their roots in pre-Church Greece and Rome. The Church has been historically resistant to the idea of liberty if it meant disobedience to the established ruling secular authority in the sense of a emperor, king or prince, or if it meant disobedience to the Church. The Church traditionally taught a narrow path of truth.
Of course I guess it depends on how you define rights and liberty.
Clement XIII 1766 11 25 - "They preach with a detestable and insane freedom of thought that the origin and nature of our soul is mortal although it was created in the image of the supreme creator little lower than the angels."
- "For accursed men who have given themselves over to myths and who do not uphold the stronghold of Sion from all sides vomit the poison of serpents from their hearts for the ruin of the Christian people by the contagious plague of books which almost overwhelms us. They pollute the pure waters of belief and destroy the foundations of religion.
Pope Gregory XVI 1832 8 15 Marari Voss - "Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty."
" This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say."
Of course, as I've said, I'll have to read Tierney and get back.
Post a Comment