tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post5918269295763206932..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: 1 Peter 2Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67302347229695586202011-07-16T22:37:57.465-06:002011-07-16T22:37:57.465-06:00"Humanism" has become synonymous with se..."Humanism" has become synonymous with secularism. Man's reason, not God's will, is supreme. It is in open conflict with religion, indeed in conflict with theism, that our rights come from our nature, from God: inherent in our God-given nature, per a "natural law."<br /><br />This is the part of the Founding and the Declaration that we go round and round about and never reach the center.<br /><br />The rest, I don't care about, and neither does "freedom of conscience." Whatever happens after we die, whether we go to heaven or hell or just wink out of existence, that's out of our hands, and especially out of any government's hands. John Locke, the Letter Concerning Toleration.<br /><br /><i>First, because the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate, any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another as to compel anyone to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the people, because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. </i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1424520382309325312011-07-16T21:34:54.939-06:002011-07-16T21:34:54.939-06:00TOM, I don't know how you got that I am Progre...TOM, I don't know how you got that I am Progressive! I am a Conservative, excepting a few social issues. I am NOT an "Internationalist". And maybe my comment on a development of law, or critical analysis of law, gave you the impression I was/am progressive...NO, I am just interested in investigating that issue..concerning how amendments got "their foot in the door"...I am ignorant for the most part concerning history...<br /><br />I don't think that one has to affirm religion to be humanistic. Nor, do I think that religion is the basis for authority, as it leads to dependency, on some "annointed" figure.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77201545190818666842011-07-16T20:56:18.764-06:002011-07-16T20:56:18.764-06:00Angie, it's fine to "err" on the pro...Angie, it's fine to "err" on the progressive side, as long as you know it's an error. [j/k]<br /><br />Seriously, I have my POV, and it comes out during the course of discussing the Founding, but everybody has a POV. The thing I'm most about the Founding and our blog is that we <i>understand them as they understood themselves</i>.<br /><br />If we want to "progress" away from their values, that's OK---I think we should understand their values first, that's all. That's what studying history is for, the baby and the bathwater and the difference between them.<br /><br />Nobody, not even "conservatives," wants to go back to 1776 or 1787, slavery, landowners-only voting, or men-only, or whites-only, and a zillion other things. That was all bathwater, and good that we threw it all out.<br /><br />On the other hand, natural law, divine Providence, our rights rooted in God and human nature, well, mebbe that's a babe we should understand and appreciate before tossing.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1697831695020547542011-07-15T20:03:40.494-06:002011-07-15T20:03:40.494-06:00Tom,
Thank you for the website...I am basically co...Tom,<br />Thank you for the website...I am basically conservative in my opinion about fiscal issues and the nation-state!!! But, when it comes to social issues, I sometimes err on the progressive side. I am still learning so much, and deciding what seems to be the most imperative for me personally. This work should have been done much earlier than now....but better now than never, I suppose...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-40522775715293565902011-07-15T13:34:42.917-06:002011-07-15T13:34:42.917-06:00Angie, I think there's a confusion here. Most...Angie, I think there's a confusion here. Most of Suarez and Grotius' work circa 1600 on "natural law" took the form of international law, a "law of nations." So that's why international law creeps into these discussions.<br /><br />However, the 20th century movement of international law and of the UN Declaration of [Universal] Rights is kind of a separate issue, although related.<br /><br />The USA continues to hold to your view, and we keep declining to enter into the international courts scheme and signing all the latest UN "human rights" schemes. I like Justice Scalia in particular snorting at international law being applied in the US, and other justices using European sensibilities as the yardstick for "human rights." <br /><br /><i>"If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way Europeans are." <br /><br />"I dare say that few of us here would want our life or liberty subject to the disposition of French or Italian criminal justice—not because those systems are unjust, but because we think ours is better."</i><br /><br />"Every aspect of your career broadens your outlook and the insights that you would have. It's good for the Court to have people with varied backgrounds. One of the things I'm concerned about is that in recent years, nobody who has been appointed has come from another bench," Scalia said.<br /><br />"It's probably not good," he continued. "It's leading us toward the European system. The big differences between our system and the European system are not what I am talking about here. ... The big difference is the nature of the judges." <br /><br />Calling European judges "the most blinkered bureaucrats," Scalia said that career judges in European systems can develop a sympathy for the government's side of a case, having worked for the government their entire professional lives.<br /><br />"You contrast that with the Anglo-Saxon system, where in the most important courts the judges not only have not been spending their whole life with their snout in the public trough, they've been suing the government," Scalia said. "They've been defending their clients against the government. (It's) a different mind, a different mindset."<br /><br />"I worry about our not having people of a lot of different experiences, especially with substantial legal practice," Scalia added. "More and more people practice for a couple years, then they become a minor state court judge and they stay in the judiciary the rest of their career. You can have some people like that, but if our whole judiciary becomes like that, we're going to become European. I may as well move to France."<br /><br />Heh heh. Our forefathers didn't come to America just to become Europeans!<br /><br />You should like this one:<br /><br />http://james-a-watkins.hubpages.com/hub/Conservatives-Defend-the-American-WayTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14324673395864899022011-07-15T07:11:22.721-06:002011-07-15T07:11:22.721-06:00tom,
the development of law would be an interestin...tom,<br />the development of law would be an interesting topic to discuss...but how did this influence the founders, who were men of the enlightenment? <br /><br />there is still an effort and push toward internationalism, as to natural law....natural rights....which is a unversalization of government...are we to suppose that those that have poitical amibitions will not watch "the collective" until an opportune moment....or maybe the empowered are waiting for their chance to seize power from "the mob"...<br /><br />How is anyone to believe that a global government will work as well as our nation's balance of power and limited government has????? that seems most improable!!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43097117666245524872011-07-15T02:11:26.803-06:002011-07-15T02:11:26.803-06:00Brian Tierney da bomb. Or a dud, I dunno. Proble...Brian Tierney da bomb. Or a dud, I dunno. Problem is, so few scholars have even the faintest familiarity with medieval philosophy let alone medieval Latin that they are unequipped to evaluate his work. So they just skip it.<br /><br />[For those who came in late, it's Tierney's thesis that most of the development of "natural rights" already occurred from 1000-1600 AD in [mostly Catholic] "canon law." Canon law included "ecclesiastical" law, a parallel system of courts to "civil" law and courts, and which had jurisdiction over many of the issues of everyday life: births, deaths, inheritances; property disputes; marriage, adultery; heresy of course, but also drunkenness and other issues of social order.<br /><br />The Puritans left that split system back in Britain, but it continued there until the 1800s. They even still exist today in a very limited fashion.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59902981500446093272011-07-14T23:08:29.852-06:002011-07-14T23:08:29.852-06:00"And let's welcome back Joe Winpisinger, ..."And let's welcome back Joe Winpisinger, the "King of Ireland," who spearheaded the Calvinist "magistrate"/"interposition" argument here at AC"<br /><br />Going back to teaching soon. Will have more time to spend here. I am going to start posting all I have written here on my new business page. The scope there has broadened to all the factors that influence society. Religion, Education, and Government are 3 big topics I hit on so these posts will most certainly be relevant.<br /><br />Then I will start back contributing here. I will probably hit back on the history of the ideas of liberty theme and go back to Tierney and start over since I have had such a big lay off.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13525858551867530960noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-38425248928590621852011-07-12T21:50:38.232-06:002011-07-12T21:50:38.232-06:00Mr. Pappas, I could not agree more, on every rich ...Mr. Pappas, I could not agree more, on every rich and pithy point. I scarcely know where to start. perhaps at the beginning, then.<br /><br /><i>I use the general term paternalistic since it encompasses all type of societies that put the state ahead of the individual be they egalitarian or designed to benefit a few. The classical societies were paternalistic but not egalitarian.</i><br /><br />This is Plato and the "noble lie." The noble lie is only a lie in its telling, in its pretense to metaphysics, that some men are made of gold, of silver, or of iron/bronze.<br /><br />"Brave New World" puts it as alphas, betas, and gammas. It's really not a question of breeding, or in the later context, race. Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, perhaps even Bill Clinton, they are gold, their natural talents and the way they developed them. They walk above the room, not in it. Andy Jackson. Ronald Reagan, in later life. Jefferson and Madison, in subtler ways than Washington and in his shadow, but proven gold in the test of time.<br /><br />John Adams, silver. John Quincy Adams, silver, although with a character of gold. Hamilton, gold, but with a character and temperament made of silver, or not even. Nothing without Washington. Disaster.<br /><br />Roger Sherman, and many of the Founders who went home rather than stay in government. Gold. John Witherspoon. Gold. Gouverneur Morris would have ended up president of any lesser country. Sam Adams too. James Wilson, the smartest of them all save Madison and perhaps Jefferson [I give the edge to Wilson]. Feet of clay, died hiding from his creditors. But still silver.<br /><br />Eldridge Gerry, well it takes mediocre men to make a country, too.<br /><br />Geez, I only did yr first paragraph of pith. The point being that although John Adams floated the idea of benevolent aristocracy with Jefferson---a House of Lords--- Jefferson shot him down quick and bigtime. And although Jefferson hated Plato, Plato's "Guardians" of <i>The Republic</i> were chosen by merit, not aristocratic origin. In fact, Plato even let slip that mebbe <i>women</i> could be "Guardians." [I sometimes think Jefferson didn't read Plato well enough, or mebbe he read him too well...]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46409319693374747772011-07-12T20:35:47.018-06:002011-07-12T20:35:47.018-06:00I use the general term paternalistic since it enco...I use the general term <i>paternalistic</i> since it encompasses all type of societies that put the state ahead of the individual be they egalitarian or designed to benefit a few. The classical societies were paternalistic but not egalitarian. However, some of the better societies for a period had a strong respect for private property and gave the enfranchised a realm of liberty. The limited fellowship of the enfranchised looked artificial to the Stoics but their ethos never dominated the social thought of the times--certainly not the political policies.<br /><br />I’m still not sure how to characterized the founders selective use of the best of Western tradition mixed with certain early Enlightenment thought. I find it ironic that the natural rights talk of the DOI, which was meant to be understood by all on both sides of the Atlantic as common ground, was in the process of being abandoned in England and bastardize in France! Utilitarianism replaced rights in England and soon in America, too! The empiricism of the Founders led them to the study of history. The empiricism of John Dewey led him to abandon history in favor of experimentation. <br /><br />All the words are the same but as usual they mean different things to the Founders. The more I read, the more I believe modern readers have limited means to approach this unique period. We are divided by a common language!Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-58399936580992255732011-07-12T20:04:41.130-06:002011-07-12T20:04:41.130-06:00I certainly see the Founding that way, Jason, alth...I certainly see the Founding that way, Jason, although I won't assert it was Providence as the Founders did.<br /><br />But the American founding stands at the edge of the classical-cum-Christian medieval, with easily as much Protestantism as Enlightenment, but before the Enlightenment-as-modernity takes over, as it does in a handful of years in France, where the <i>ancien regime</i> is replaced in one fell swoop [chop!] with the Reign of Terror.<br /><br /><i>You're probably right since socialism is Christianity secularized.</i><br /><br />Mostly true, but "society" is replaced by politics and government, the organic by the artificial. And ironically, the classical scheme, that of the Greeks and Romans, was also politics writ so large that the individual human being dissolved into it.<br /><br />Socrates must die; he is a threat to the state. Even Socrates knows this, which is why he drinks rather than refuses the hemlock. [Or flees, which would have been quite easy for him.]<br /><br />There is no difference between the hemlock and the guillotine and the gulag. The state must be preserved!Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49541839077248713002011-07-12T19:44:34.114-06:002011-07-12T19:44:34.114-06:00'The question is whether Hellenistic paganism ...<i>'The question is whether Hellenistic paganism could have developed what Habermas calls "universal egalitarianism."</i><br /><br />You're probably right since socialism is Christianity secularized. I doubt it would fly in classical times. <br /><br />The rise of serfdom circa 400AD made everyone poor and needy. Charity and the paternalistic state was clearly appealing. Today socialism still has broad appeal as most prefer paternalism in one form or another.<br /><br />I often wonder if this nation wasn't a highly improvable creation of a cultural singularity in time and space that lasted a few decades. Now that might be the best argument for a providential conception if I thought that way!Jason Pappashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18233796281520274898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43870101527301269322011-07-12T17:22:33.304-06:002011-07-12T17:22:33.304-06:00Makes sense, Phil. Jesus as victim, as martyr, as...Makes sense, Phil. Jesus as victim, as martyr, as self-offered sacrifice, this doesn't fit into the classical vision of "hero."<br /><br />The 300 Spartans, mebbe, but they went down fighting. Same with the jihadist. These are visions of greatness to the "natural man."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77165074475975459792011-07-12T17:07:10.948-06:002011-07-12T17:07:10.948-06:00.
howzzat?
.
Maybe that's where Jesus comes in....<br /><i>howzzat?</i><br />.<br />Maybe that's where Jesus comes into the picture.<br />.<br />But, most Christian denominations make him out to be a buttress to some sort of a Reformed Judaism and not his own man at all. <br />.<br />Go figure.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20037810888581588652011-07-12T16:41:39.724-06:002011-07-12T16:41:39.724-06:00People are people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...People are people.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution<br /><br />The question is whether Hellenistic paganism could have developed what Habermas calls "universal egalitarianism." The Stoics made quite a go toward it, but they faded away. <br /><br />I'm not sure I'm making clear the difference in the cultural/philosophical view of man between the classical and the Christian. <i>The Iliad</i> sees man completely differently than the Bible does. <br /><br />Or, man writes of himself differently in the <i>Iliad</i> than he does in the Bible, howzzat?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8974194146636774362011-07-12T10:36:56.693-06:002011-07-12T10:36:56.693-06:00I dunno, JRB, you seem unsympathetic if not downri...<i>I dunno, JRB, you seem unsympathetic if not downright hostile to the idea of Christianity being a game-changer.<br /></i><br /><br />I don't deny that it was a game changer. That would be ridiculous. My interest is how did it change the game and what did it change. I recognize that it has intertwined with western culture since gaining political sway in the late Roman Imperial age. Much of what is attributed to the Church is often uncritical or apologetic rather than analytic. I merely try to keep in mind the fact that Christianity did not bloom independent of a preexisting culture which was built on the ideas of previous cultures.<br /><br />You often confuse context or questioning as hostility. Too bad.<br /><br /><i>As for charity in India in 400 CE, that didn't stick too well, did it? Not that that's relevant to my point, since Hinduism isn't part of it. Certainly Buddhism in particular is attuned to human suffering, but the topic was Hellenistic paganism.</i><br /><br />As you're a champion of reading what has been offered in the way of supporting links I'm sure that you now realize that the Hindu example was just one example to indicate that Christianity did not, in fact, invent the hospital (as claimed) or the concept of the hospital or medical care if they were pagan and had no compassion. Additional Googling, or even library, research would pop up Hellenistic and Persian examples. <br /><br />Why would a pre-Christian society lacking in compassion and empathy have any interest in caring for the poor, sick and dispossessed? <br /><br />As to pre-Christian humility and willingness to forgive, you'll have to do the reading beyond Christian apologetics, to see that these are part of the story. I will be happy to post examples as I come across them but really it's up to you to research if you really have any interest. I provided some leads. <br /><br /><i>...but Christianity genuinely had them [compassion, empathy and generosity] and paganism didn't.</i><br /><br />This merely shows that you have a preference for Christian authority in making these traits genuine, not that the traits did not exist prior to Christianity.<br /><br />When speaking of Christian love - agape - this has to be balanced with the more brutal facts on the ground. To the extent that Paganism was done in by Christianity, it was largely done by the sword with civil and ecclesiastical cooperation. I would love a world where genuine brotherly love was the rule without it breaking out into sectarian wars over orthodoxy. Speaking of not working out well.<br /><br />And, I should say for the record, I'm not a fan of Paganism. I'm much more a fan of the system that was gotten under way in this country where a person's right of conscience - to believe as one wishes in a Diety or deities or to not believe - is a fundamental underlying principle. And, someday maybe, although a long shot, I hope that both sides don't demonize the other as enemies to be eradicated at all costs.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10535080857964665132011-07-11T14:12:43.385-06:002011-07-11T14:12:43.385-06:00"Conflicts" are inevitable in a free soc..."Conflicts" are inevitable in a free society. So, I don't question that liberties are in "conflict". And I don't believe it is a one-sided affair, not at all!!! But, negotiation is the minimum, which requires disclosure to the parties involved as to the conflicts of interests. How can one vote on what is done in secret. This is what happened to the Republicas during the "Obamacare" legislation.<br /><br />Whenever there is secrecy there is corruption. Therefore, when there is a conflict and negotiation has not been forthcoming, then aren't our courts to settle disputes between parties? This seem reasonable to me, as to boundaries.<br /><br />As to balance, I don't know, as the sides of the political debate all have pros and cons, don't they? This is where personal liberty regarding one's political position should be allowed in a free society. And different people will understad and think differently on different issues....Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24577545934527126312011-07-11T13:58:19.542-06:002011-07-11T13:58:19.542-06:00.
>I just don't know how to make it any cle....<br /><i>>I just don't know how to make it any clearer than cyberblack and white. </i><br />.<br />Angie appears to be having a problem with the ideas of balance. When some person's liberty comes into a confrontation with another's liberty, there often is a conflict. I don't think Angie gets that. She seems to think liberty is a one sided affair.<br />.<br />?????<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80805973846600028992011-07-11T13:35:00.253-06:002011-07-11T13:35:00.253-06:00Forbearance of what, Tom? Not the "ruleof law...Forbearance of what, Tom? Not the "ruleof law" is it? religious conscience? abuses of power? illegal activity? international law, versys our Constitutional government?<br /><br /> Charity is paternalism, not libertarianism.<br />Charity is a negotiable in a free society. The Church loves to prey on such subjects, as they make for a 'reason' for religious conscience....Charity undermines industry and pride of ownership...<br /><br />I will come back later to read the articles you posted...thanks...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64017678505617946152011-07-11T13:25:05.207-06:002011-07-11T13:25:05.207-06:00that is in opposition to "free conscience&quo...<i>that is in opposition to "free conscience", "free speech", and "freedom of assoication"</i><br /><br />These points aren't in dispute, Angie, except by you. See George Mason above [I read Madison helped with the conscience bit]. Freedom of conscience is right alongside Christian tolerance ["forbearance"] and Christian charity in the Virginia scheme of 1776, which contains America's Founding principles.<br /><br /><i>"...all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."</i><br /><br />I just don't know how to make it any clearer than cyberblack and white.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78388469577405324192011-07-11T13:18:59.746-06:002011-07-11T13:18:59.746-06:00An interesting article on the transformation of th...An interesting article on the transformation of the Aristotelian-Thomist view of economic activity into Enlightenment [libertarian?] capitalism, what the author calls<br /><br />http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-emancipation-of-avarice<br /><br />I think in the American context, the "Protestant work ethic" fits in there 1620-1780, where industriousness isn't synonymous with acquisitiveness, or with what classical philosophy saw as "avarice." <br /><br />But there is little doubt that modernity, Hume-Smith style economics, took over immediately after the Revolutionary period, as America unapologetically became a "commercial republic."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17537487193677649442011-07-11T13:14:10.006-06:002011-07-11T13:14:10.006-06:00that is in opposition to "free conscience&quo...that is in opposition to "free conscience", "free speech", and "freedom of assoication"!Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43684328833649340272011-07-11T13:12:18.651-06:002011-07-11T13:12:18.651-06:00Tom,
Libertarianism is "liberty of conscience...Tom,<br />Libertarianism is "liberty of conscience", meaning that free societies do not prescribe what, how or where one's conscience is to be defined, except within the boundaries of law. Even law is descriptive in the sense of a "free society" where individuals seek redress of grievances against government.<br /><br />Paternalistic views are in opposition to libertarian and intuitive personality types...scienctific theories, then determines and makes demands upon others in what is supposed a free society...Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33208540608858961462011-07-11T11:44:11.554-06:002011-07-11T11:44:11.554-06:00I dunno, JRB, you seem unsympathetic if not downri...I dunno, JRB, you seem unsympathetic if not downright hostile to the idea of Christianity being a game-changer. In my desperation to find a source you wouldn't dismiss [like Tertullian], I don't think I could have done better than Julian the Apostate!<br /><br />As for charity in India in 400 CE, that didn't stick too well, did it? Not that that's relevant to my point, since Hinduism isn't part of it. Certainly Buddhism in particular is attuned to human suffering, but the topic was Hellenistic paganism.<br /><br />And to Jason, we merely note via Emperor Julian how it came about that Christianity became a critical mass to compete with paganism in the first place. It is indeed the philosophical game-changer, which is the point of this whole discussion.<br /><br />____________<br /><br />As for libertarianism, Angie, I'm not sure it's a coherent, stand-alone philosophy. It's more a reaction to Leviathan, methinks. Yes, Adam Smith observes an "invisible hand" where economic activity thrives without central planning, but he also says<br /><br /><i>No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.</i><br /><br />Even the Romans knew that, on empirical, albeit not moral grounds.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89212359749381913302011-07-11T11:33:40.962-06:002011-07-11T11:33:40.962-06:00"XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe ..."XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."<br /><br />Virginia Declaration of Rights<br />"Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason"Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com