Dispatches from the Creation Wars

When christians rule or even have too much power, non-christians suffer. The innumerable examples are sufficient reason to desire christian banishment from governance, not it's institutionalization.

Posted by: MikeMa | December 23, 2009 9:34 AM

I highly doubt that Jesus would care one way or another about what form of government or economic market we have. If I had to guess, I'd bet he'd want a theocracy and communism, but he'd probably be apathetic either way.

Posted by: catgirl | December 23, 2009 9:53 AM

I know that the Republicans think of themselves as "God's Own Party," but I retain a grain of hope that Barton meant lower-case "republican form of government."

Posted by: Zeno | December 23, 2009 10:21 AM

And it's funny, people like Barton always point to the Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Mayflower Compact as examples of America's Christian heritage -- but where was that freedom of conscience and religion established by those people? They didn't even protect freedom of conscience for the wrong kind of Christians, much less for Jews or Hindus or non-believers. Just being a Baptist or a Quaker in Massachusetts was grounds for being jailed, exiled and even put to death.

The interesting thing is that neocons are rewriting the whole Thanksgiving thing. You know what saved the Plymouth colony? Not Squanto and learning how to plant and fertilize crops, non of that collectivism commie shit, no, no no, what saved Plymouth colony and the Pilgrims was private property!

Seriously, do a google search, you'll find article after article on conservative websites parroting this meme and arguing that health care reform was proven to be a failure by the Pilgrims and their attempt to collectivize but they were saved by private property and the free market. Seriously...

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 23, 2009 10:30 AM

The Japan example clearly shows what happens if you don't have Christianity to put you right. Japan is one of the most overt racist country in the world. Compare that to the unequaled racial harmony we've enjoyed in this beautiful Christian country since its founding...

Damn, I knew it was too early for eggnog.

Posted by: Mu | December 23, 2009 10:40 AM

When christians Christianity rules or even have has too much power, non-christians everyone suffers.

Fixed.

Posted by: DaveL | December 23, 2009 10:44 AM

What's truly amusing about this ignoramus is his babbling about how great the bible is for giving us a republican form of government, while, at the same time, hoping for a series of events where by he will be raptured up to heaven only to return when an unelected monarch establishes himself as ruler of the world after ghastly bloodshed.

Posted by: History Punk | December 23, 2009 11:09 AM

Wait, I thought that these guys hated the public school system for being a Satanic force indoctrinating their children in evil secular humanism. I wish they'd make up their mind.

On top of that, public schools are just as socialist as universal health care. If kids can't afford private schools, then they should stop being lazy, get jobs, and earn their way into school, right?

Posted by: catgirl | December 23, 2009 11:14 AM

Wouldn't it be better to find some belief that doesn't take 1,776 years to get to democracy?

Of course most of our founding fathers weren't particularly Christian (Andrew Jackson was our first practicing Christian president and he only started practicing after he retired from the presidency). The most popular book of the late 1700's was "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine which supports Deism and renounces institutionalized religion and challenges the legitimacy of the Bible.

Posted by: Tom | December 23, 2009 11:45 AM

Wait, Japan has a republican form of government? did anyone tell the Emperor?

Seriously, I think we must be using different definitions. I think of republican as indicating that the head of state is not hereditary and democratic as meaning the effective (i.e not figurehead) government is elected. For example Japan has a democratic form of government not a republican one, Burma is republican but not democratic and you lot get both.

Posted by: Matty | December 23, 2009 11:53 AM

I just love those Rethugs who call their branch of organized crime "gods own party". Isn't that a pretty good translation of "Hezbollah"? Guess this means conservatives have misidentified which politicians are the Muslim terrorists. Just saying.

Posted by: ursa major | December 23, 2009 12:34 PM

GOP:
God's Old Perversion
Guilty Of Perjury/Perversion/Preaching/Pandemonium
Great Outing Party
Gone Off Point (again)

Just having fun at lunch...

Posted by: MikeMa | December 23, 2009 12:59 PM

Um... Matty, have you any knowledge of the Japanese constitution? The Emperor has no political power in Japan - unlike the British monarch, who has the power to dissolve Parliament. The Japanese Emperor only has symbolic power in the political realm, but is the head of the Shinto religion; a religion that isn't really practiced actively by many Japanese (at least not in the way that Americans are actively Christian). To quote from articles 1 and 4 of the Japanese constitution:

The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.

and

The Emperor shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in this Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government. 2) The Emperor may delegate the performance of his acts in matters of state as may be provided for by law.

Therefore, if you look at the role of the monarchy in government, Japan's Emperor has no governmental power, and any power he does have is given to him by the parliament; a parliament comprised of representatives of the prefectures. Therefore, if you look at the role of the monarch, Japan is effectively a republic. If you claim that Japan isn't a republic because of the existence of a monarch, then you are correct, but that claim is a weak one, since the role of the monarch is almost completely curtailed - as described above.

On the other hand, republics like France and the U.S. do have their own political dynasties that continue to hold power over time, are effectively guaranteed power through one-sided elections, and are effectively more monarchical in power than the Japanese emperor (or even the British monarch) currently is. Does this make these countries less of a "Republic"? Again, not if you only go with a check-list of a definition of "republic".

Bottom line: Just calling something a "republic" doesn't make it so: critical analysis of the quality of a country's "Republic-ness" is needed to analyze like with like.

Posted by: Umlud | December 23, 2009 1:17 PM

The interesting thing is that neocons are rewriting the whole Thanksgiving thing. You know what saved the Plymouth colony? Not Squanto and learning how to plant and fertilize crops, non of that collectivism commie shit, no, no no, what saved Plymouth colony and the Pilgrims was private property!

They're not just making that up; it's what William Bradford claimed in his history, Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647. According to Bradford, the scheme of communal planting and harvesting was to blame for the colonists being unable to produce enough food to feed themselves. They ended the experiment in 1623 and, again according to Bradford's account, a lot more planting took place once everyone was working only for himself.

Bradford claimed that such "sober and godly men" should have been uniquely capable of making a communal system work, but I'm not sure he didn't rig the experiment to fail by choosing 17th Century Englishmen(!). In any event, though, the story is not fabricated and the primary historical source does claim that private property provided the systemic solution to the Pilgrims' food problems.

Posted by: Scott Hanley | December 23, 2009 1:25 PM

Holy shit! You really want to just kill everyone who disagrees with you? The Bible says that Jesus came to fulfill the law. You cannot live up to it either stop trying, humble yourself, and realize that we are all in this together.

What's he supposed to live up to? Nobody even knows what it means! Fulfill the law... makes perfects sense... such clarity and soooooo not ambiguous!

Posted by: 386sx | December 23, 2009 1:35 PM

386,

You no nothing of what you try to speak of so often. Read my long comment you are exactly the type of partisan hack I am calling out. If it is not clear then study it fool!

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 23, 2009 1:47 PM

King of Ireland, doesn't the phrase "fulfill the law" sound really lame and superstitious and nonsensical? I guess I must be wrong about that. It must be some really deep profound stuff there or something.

"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Makes perfect sense... nothing stupid about it at all...

I better go study it immediately!!

Posted by: 386sx | December 23, 2009 2:09 PM

386,

Makes just as much sense to you who have no clue about the Bible or theology as quantum physics does to me who has no clue about physics. I do not speak about what I do not know and neither should you. If I thought you really wanted to have an honest discussion I would explain this to you. Since I do not it becomes a waste of time. If you are so smart why don't you enlighten us to what Locke has to say about loving one's neighbor in his Second Treatise? Lets step into the big boy pool or just quite down.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 23, 2009 2:22 PM

King of Ireland, you're right, I don't even want to bother with it. I'm sure Locke was quite a guy and he could make the Bible say what he wanted just like everybody else. Or, maybe he got it exactly right. Good for him, I guess. Happy Holidays though! Cheers.

Posted by: 386sx | December 23, 2009 2:35 PM

and Eamon, Happy Emperor's Birthday! ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_Birthday

Posted by: Umlud | December 23, 2009 2:38 PM

I've taken quantum physics and it definitely makes more sense than the Bible.

Also, KoI, 386sx is expressing a common criticism of Christianity. One does not need to be a theologian to have the opinion that the idea of punishing an innocent person for others people's misdeeds is a disturbingly bad idea, especially when that person is your own child. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but I think you are out of line with your condescending response to 386.

Further, there is enough "ambient" religion that we can know a lot more about it than we can about a relatively obscure and specialized topic like quantum physics. I think you should probably expect that people are going to have opinions about it. If there were as much ambient quantum mechanics discussion as there is with religion, I think you'd probably find you'd have opinions about it. I daresay you'd even be likely to periodically express them.

Posted by: Leni | December 23, 2009 2:53 PM

King of Ireland, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit," makes no sense whatsoever. Not even in the slightest! Not even Mr. Locke could salvage that nonsense. I'm sure he meant well though!!

Posted by: 386sx | December 23, 2009 3:08 PM

"Further, there is enough "ambient" religion that we can know a lot more about it than we can about a relatively obscure and specialized topic like quantum physics"

Much of the founding era political theology is based pre-Aquinas canon law at its foundations. Much of it was added to by Rutherford, Sidney, Locke and Ponnet. Most people do not even know who these people are much less what they thought and how it relates to the founding. This is a specialized area of study that anyone can do. I learned all I know by reading the stuff myself. If you do not want to do the homework than do not comment.

With that said, this post was not about the truth or untruth of Christianity. It was about the founding. Barbs about bible verses are actually off topic. 386 thinks he is funny and does this all the time. Unlike others I am not going to just be polite and take it anymore or leave. I am going to hit back sarcasm with sarcasm. You one cannot take it then do not dish it out.

386,

Why don't you start with looking up the verse you cited in the Greek. Then go back and study the Greek thought at the time surrounding words used in this context. Then what is Chinese may turn into English for you. You do not want to know so you will not and this proves you are a hack. No better than the hay seed Christians you make fun of.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 23, 2009 4:56 PM

KOI @46:

Then what is Chinese may turn into English for you.

Which "Chinese" are you speaking of? I am assuming that you mean "Mandarin," which is the language spoken by the majority of people in the PRC. However, there are hundreds of millions of people that speak a different "Chinese" than Mandarin as their first language. If you meant "Mandarin," why didn't you just say it? If you meant "written Chinese" - since many of the Chinese languages share the same Qin-dynasty-standardized symbol-based script - then why not be more precise and state that you were speaking of this written version as opposed to one of the various spoken forms?

Your statement smacks of either a sorry lack of understanding of a language group spoken by roughly 1 billion people or an analogous callous off-the-cuff shorthand similar to the type you accuse others of using with you sacred cow of scripture. Sorry, but such casual an agglomeration of several individual languages into a single "Chinese" language is a pet-peeve of mine; my own sacred cow, if you will.

Posted by: John Yum | December 23, 2009 5:21 PM

John Yum,

Chinese in the sense of being a hard language to learn. Scripture is not a sacred cow to me. Any honest and sincere questions are welcomed. 386 seeks to be a dick. The only way to do with sarcastic twits is to give it back to them. His comment was off topic period. Mine was germane. Some on this site when they cannot engage an intelligent argument seek to attack the person. Him fucking with me was this in action.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 23, 2009 5:40 PM

Umlaut (#26) - "...unlike the British monarch, who has the power to dissolve Parliament."
I'm not sure, but I think the English monarch hasn't been able to do this since the 1640's, the Roundheads made sure of that. The monarch can dissolve Parliament if it asks them to, as a matter of practicality, the monarch always bows to their wishes.
Not much of a power.
Matty - Using your logic, America isn't a republic, if it were it'd have officers such as emphor (or consul). Since American doesn't, it isn't QED. - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | December 23, 2009 5:54 PM

Society of Christians for the
Restoration of Old Testament
Morality? That was the man from SCROTM!

Posted by: Porcullus Macobb | December 23, 2009 6:40 PM

DingoJack@52:
The British monarch has no power to dissolve Parliament without the express request of the government. However, the monarch does have a discretionary power to refuse a dissolution where a government loses its majority if the monarch believes there is a possibility of someone else forming a government. As far as I recall, that discretionary power is subject to a requirement to hold a general election every 5 years or so. (Bit rusty on British Const. Law, apols)

Posted by: Amadan | December 23, 2009 7:24 PM

On religion in Japan, all one really needs to observe is the fact that people visit Shinto shrines on festival days, get married in front of fake ministers in fake Christian chapels, and have Buddhist funerals. These are more social conventions than religious activities as we would understand them. In fact, most of the Japanese people I know have said that they do not think Shinto is actually a religion at all.

Posted by: beibanjin | December 23, 2009 8:48 PM

Mike,

This was all under the "Law'. The same law that I said no one can live up to to defend you guys against what I thought was a prick Christian saying that all of you deserved to be swallowed up in the ground. I guess it was a parody. But instead of getting behind the Christian guy that calls out the pricks you guys hate so much 386 decides to turn on me with his bullshit that had nothing to do with what I said about the post.

Now I think when Jesus came and they brought the whore to him and expected him to stone her for adultery(clearing against the Law of the Old Testament) he told them to throw the first stone and let her go. There is a message in their somewhere. The Israelites when asked wanted to live under the Law. See Moses on the Mountain. I do not and neither should anyone else. I think it goes like this, "If you want to live under the law fine here is what the logical conclusion of your choice entails." This concept is consistent with when the asked for a King. God gave it to them and warned them how it was going to work out for them. Compare his warning to the Declaration of Independence.

Believe it or do not believe it. It is a free country. But do not shell out half the story. So can we get back to all the people here that want to comment on the foundations of America and have never read most of what Locke said in his "Two Treatises"? By the way the first one is a completely theological argument straight from the Bible. You do not have to believe, But to have an honest discussion one must actually read things relevant to what one is talking about.

So my original comment stands. 386 is just a distraction to what could actually be a good discussion. But I am sure people want to stay in the kiddie pool and just hurl insults. It is a shame.

By the way no one is beneath me. I just thought those who are dicks to anyone that does not agree with the Pope like infallible opinions on how things should be should get some of their own medicine. Pot shots masquerading as intelligence is childish.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 23, 2009 10:07 PM

Dingojack @52:

The monarch can dissolve Parliament if it asks them to, as a matter of practicality, the monarch always bows to their wishes. Not much of a power.

But it is worlds more governmental power than what the Japanese Emperor has. This is what my original point was. That the Queen's power is highly curtailed - and yet still extant - is very different than the total lack of any governmental power wielded by the Japanese Emperor.

Posted by: Umlud | December 23, 2009 10:45 PM

"The Egyptians were writing about the idea during the Middle Kingdom, or 1600-2000 years before Christ was purportedly born."

Evidence please?

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 24, 2009 3:02 AM

Yeah! Take that you europeans - you don't have republics, you don't have public schooling, you don't have religious tolerance, you don't have freedom of conscience (whatever the hell that is) and none of your nations are benevolent! The Grand Shitbag said it's so, so it must be true.

Posted by: MadScientist | December 24, 2009 3:30 AM

King of Ireland said:
'"The Egyptians were writing about the idea during the Middle Kingdom, or 1600-2000 years before Christ was purportedly born."

Evidence please?'

Maat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat

It's mentioned in several pieces of Egyptian writing. That much you can find on wikipedia.

Posted by: Mike | December 24, 2009 11:27 AM

Universal love isn't even a good idea. It sounds nice, but you can't love everyone. That isn't how emotions work. And how could kinship ties work; how could someone be rewarded with commitment and love; how could society, in fact, function, if people love each other equally? Human society is not infinitely malleable, and devotion to universal love and communitas is inevitably a passing fad that turns into structured religion, and therefore a part of the social structure instead of its opposite, soon enough. (For more on this, please turn to Victor Turner's work, in particular "The Ritual Process", 1969.)
That's not to say it doesn't feel nice as an idea, or that, in an ideal universe, it wouldn't be feasible. It's simply that this isn't an ideal universe, there is such a thing as human nature, and universal love is incompatible with it, even the most bare conception of it. In the end, Jesus Christ's teachings are impractical and, therefore, rather pointless, regardless of the metaphysics (which, I would also say, are nonsensical, there being no deities or objective goods).

The argument as to whether universal love is Christian or Mohist or Egyptian is thus a little... unnecessary. And who gives a fuck what Locke thought about it? I mean, really?

Posted by: Al West | December 24, 2009 2:09 PM

Tried to reply to the Egypt question could not get comment through

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 24, 2009 3:10 PM

Response to Mike and others Part 2

As the original "King of Ireland" , who was the guy who looked at Braveheart and called Ireland "his island", stated so bluntly and accurately in the movie, "Do not change the subject answer the fucking question!!" It might take some actual reading of Lex Rex, The Two Treatises, Calvin's Institutes, A Short Treatise on Political Power, and other writings that shed light on where the ideas behind the Revolution came from. If you are not willing to do it then at least pipe down some and stop bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Or we could just drop the "Culture War" and discuss this like intelligent human beings and learn from each other. I was looking forward to Tom Van Dyke coming on this blog and engaging Ed in a good debate on the 14th Amendment and Federalism. It is people like 386 that keep that from happening. Tom did answer Ed here:

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/11/originalism-in-constitutional-law.html

I sincerely believe Ed looked for it and did not see it. It is not wonder with all the mindless chatter in the background.

People, you are not going to meet two smarter and more informed people on this topic than Tom and Ed. I think we all could learn from a discussion/debate on Federalism and jurisprudence. Tom does not want to come back to this site and I do not blame him. By the way, his response to Ed on the Loving Case sounds pretty solid to me with my limited understanding of the complexities of the issue.

Peace to all. Thanks to those who I have learned something from here. Especially Ed who I really have learned a lot from.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 24, 2009 3:16 PM

Re: King of Ireland No. 72 & 73.

You need to read a little more about Egyptian History. The 12th Dynasty was the height of the middle Kingdom. The Hysksos arrived during the so called 2nd intermediate period that began during the 13th dynasty. The Hyskos were I believe the 15th and 16th Dynasties. The idea that the Hebrews influenced the concept of Maat is sheer speculation. There is no evidence of such a stay over in Egypt for one. Also the idea that assuming there is anything to the story of the stayover in Egypt no ideaès about what the·so-called Hebrews at the time thought about anything. I suggest you find a copy of the Egyptian Admonitions of Ipuwer, which is ussually dated to the first Intermediate period 9c. 2100 B.C.E., for the development of Egyptian ideas of Social Justice.

The whole Exodus story is dubious.

I rather doubt the hebrews had any influence at all assuming they even existed at the time.

You might also try finding stuff by Mo-zi.

As for Calvins Institutes aside from aning about the terrors of a theocratic state I do not see much to learn. The founding fathers were much more influence by Aristotle, Cicero, Plato etc. Pagans all. To say nothing about ancient Athens and Sparta.

Posted by: Pacal | December 24, 2009 5:14 PM

RE: Post No. 75.

Well sometimes you have a day when you screw up spelling etc.

My appologies for that. I hope at least some of what Iwas trying to say got through the general screw up.

Posted by: Pacal | December 24, 2009 6:50 PM

This law was evident to the Gentiles that did not have the Hebrew Law. It is called natural law or as Aquinas put it general revelation.

I'm not terribly widely read on philosophy, but if these precepts were evident to the Gentiles, by what right could it be claimed to be Judeo-Christian?

Posted by: DaveL | December 24, 2009 8:30 PM

Mike

I was giving 386 the fight he wanted and you got caught in the middle. He slinked off. I took your response as a serious one and that is why I responded. I apologize if I offended you.

Leni,

The whole point of bringing up the Bible verse was that that is the best way to deal with Christian assholes. I was quoting it to them not realizing it was a parody. 386 took at a chance to make a pot shot. It happens here often. Ed has admitted as much I think would agree with at least some if not most of what I state the problem is.

I can understand when people like Pat come on here and spout crazy shit. I tell them to fuck off too. But when people come on to engage in a sincere and real exchange of ideas it runs them off. I used to let it go but every now and then you gotta hit back to shut people up so an actual discussion can take place.

My comment is centered around being appalled at the amount of people that speak out on this topic and really do not know what they are talking about. It keeps things in the gutter. The truth is never found there.

By the way I do look at the Greek before I say anything. Though I do agree most Christians do not. I am on their ass about it too. I apologize if I offended you too. That was not my intention.

Pacal,

I only read a little bit on this period. I said that some of the conclusions I read was conjecture. I also left open the possibility that the Egyptians influenced the Hebrews for good. I have done a lot of teacing in class when I was a History teacher on the fact that diversity in culture and religion tends to moderate the religion and make it more tolerant. You see this as Islam spread closer to Europe in the Middle Ages.

Read my lastest post at American Creation for my thoughts on this concept and the founding. I think you would agree more than disagree. www.americancreation.blogspot.com It is titled American Founding: A Big Tent of Diverse Interests.

Too all,

Lets not forget that I am not David Barton and do not really support him. I think he asks the wrong questions and in doing so has taken this discussion and put it in the gutter of a pissing contest. My goal is to elevate the conversation. I still not have had one person comment on what I stated about Locke and Goldstone. I think it is a fair frame for this discussion. We shall see.

I do think it is a fair question as to why something should be called Judeo Christian if it has been influenced by other ideas and cultures. I have been and will continue to give that a lot of thought. The two main ones are Imageo Dei which is obviously in the Christian camp. I think love your neighbor as yourself is solid in the Christian camp too. I am open to being wrong on the second but Maat is not near as specific. I have not read a lot of Chinese history or philosophy but am open to hearing someone who is on the subject.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 25, 2009 12:08 AM

I've debated too many people who want to hide behind the idea that the crazier ideas in their holy writings actually make sense in the light of some original language nuance.

Yeah, like this one here:

"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Everybody bask in all of its lame idiotic glory!

Posted by: 386sx | December 25, 2009 12:59 AM

I'm not terribly widely read on philosophy, but if these precepts were evident to the Gentiles, by what right could it be claimed to be Judeo-Christian?

That's an easy one. It's something that "God" reveals to people, whether they have a Bible or not. And since the only real "God" is the Judeo-Christian God, then badda bing badda boom, it's Judeo-Christian. Easy as pie. Dare I say childishly easy and simple-minded? No, I dare not...

Posted by: 386sx | December 25, 2009 1:37 AM

"I'm not terribly widely read on philosophy, but if these precepts were evident to the Gentiles, by what right could it be claimed to be Judeo-Christian?"

That's nothing. Check "The Protestant Work Ethic" on wikipedia if you'd like to reaaally be enraged by that level of co-option. Fun fact: My Sociology teacher continued to teach it as an uncriticized theory. When I pointed out China and Japan? "They've adopted Protestant values"

Posted by: Rutee | December 25, 2009 12:16 PM

By the way. The passage on loving one's neighbor has two other parts that precede the neighbor part:

1. Loving God
2. Loving self in that you have to love yourself to love your neighbor like yourself

This aspect is often missed by even most Christians. I would like to see where this was taught in China. I think that is the difference here. People were always taught to be afraid of God not love Him. Food for thought for anyone still following this. It ties into the whole inalienable rights thing and seeing the value of self and neighbor in reverance to God. Locke hit on some of this in the Two Treatises.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 26, 2009 12:03 PM

I agree with DaveL on the documents issue, but I'm afraid I consider it somewhat irrelevant. I've always thought of the issue as, "is it logical or reasonable to base a nation on religion?", and the answer to me is a definite no. I couldn't care less if a man, two hundred years ago, was influenced by Jesus. It matters not at all to me. But then, I'm not American, and my opinion is moot.

Anyway, since the ancient Chinese didn't believe in god, it's not exactly likely that they'd have thought it necessary to have any philosopher dictate that you must love god. There's also no reason why that is progress in any meaningful sense. Nothing indicates the existence of a deity, let alone that it requires love or anything similar, or even that it is a valid notion to equate emotion of any kind with creative forces and deities, &c. It all seems rather backward and incorrect. As for loving onself, that seems to be a fairly common notion, and it doesn't set apart Christian theology from other hum drum thought.

I do find it rather delicious that you compared Mozi to Thomas Jefferson. They really could not have been more opposed. I suggest finding Burton Watson's translation of Mozi's writings (it's rather cheap, and a small book; Columbia uni paperback, I got it for about £5) and you'll see what I mean. This is especially so given that the small states of ancient China were nation states rather than subdivisions of a larger whole. Mozi was not interested in states' rights as we think of them now. (He was, though, very interesting as a philosophical influence in ancient China, and most of the best logic to be found there was created by the Later Mohists or the Sophists, who can either be considered as two schools, or one and the same. The semi famous logician Gongsun Long was almost certainly a Mohist, for instance.)

In any case, whether the idea of universal love is influential or not, it is wrong, and far from being in accordance with human nature. It is an unstable belief, and it generates the kind of thing that anthropologists (like me) and sociologists love to discuss, the thing called "structure and anti-structure" or "liminality" and "communitas" by Victor Turner, what Weber saw as the dichotomy between "routinized" and "charismatic" authority, and what Gellner wrote of as the "pendulum swing theory of Islam". Christianity developed as a millenarian cult with a universal brotherhood of man at the centre, loving everyone as himself, and loving "god". This view did not contribute to society and to the feeding, clothing and sheltering of individuals (long term, at least) and therefore was inherently unstable. People want to be able to fulfil their needs. That's a basic idea and will, of course, influence human behaviour, however deep the commitment to ideology and aesthetics. The love your neighbour thing broke down, and Christianity became in thrall to society, as happens with every religion and cult, with intermittent bursts of "genuine" religious devotion, or "charismatic authority"/"communitas" throughout, in the form of various splinter groups and schisms.

Fascinating anthropologically, pathetic when you let it influence politics in real life. Universal love is wrong. Whether it influenced any founding document anywhere is arguable, and also pointless to argue on, because it is nonsense. We can use reason to guide us, and that is what we really should do. Universal love is not part of that, and Christianity should have no part of the law.

Posted by: Al West | December 26, 2009 2:59 PM

Dave L,

I have a post at American Creation on this exact topic. It is entitled "The American Founding: A Big Tent of Diverse Interests." There are several others also further down the page that deal with this concept.

This is not something I can lay out in a comment box. So please check out what I have already written if interested. In short, I believe that the DOI was a document of Interposition in line with both Protestant and Catholic teachings on resistance to tyrants. I site some of the writers of the works I mentioned above.

More easily verifiable is that Locke starts with love of neighbor in his 2nd Treatise.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 26, 2009 6:43 PM

Dave L stated:

"In one Middle Kingdom (2062 to c. 1664 BCE) text the Creator declares "I made every man like his fellow".

This would seem to add some possible merit to the conjecture that the Israelites may have had some impact on this culture. Talk of a "Creator" seems at odds with the many "gods" concept that dominated Egyptian Culture.

As far as Locke goes, the fact that he mentions Hooker brings some validity that to the thought that Locke used Christian ideas. Liberal(as in classical) political theology of the Christian variety far precedes Locke. In fact, Interposition goes all the way back to pre-Aqinas days.

The unique thing that Judeo-Christian thought seems to bring to the table is not so much Universal Love in and of itself but that it is based on a love of self that is rooted in loving God. In short, the verse that talks about loving neighbor says that we must love him as ourself. That is what was revolutionary. My view is that it is love of self based on the fact that we are made in the image of God.

This idea goes back to some of Aquinas' teaching on property that was tied to the story of Cain and Abel. It is also rooted in the idea of the glory of God as described in Exodus 34:5-7. One does not have to believe in the truth of any of this to veracity of the history of the ideas and their incorporation in the DOI.

The origin of the ideas articulated on by John Locke seems to be pivotal in the battle over whether Theisic Rationalist vs. Judeo Christian as terms to label the political theology of the founding. The fact that Locke's Second Treatise is is preceded by a long theological argument that has it roots in historically Christian ideas that long pre-date the Enlightenment in the First Treatise would seem to tip the scales in the balance of the latter.

I restate my concern that most have not read Locke deeply enough to even begin to understand all the nuances of this topic. Regardless, of what Maat and the Chinese had to say or not say about the general concept of universal love. This has been a good attempt to change the subject but I have to restate the sentiments of my name sake from Braveheart once again:

"Do not change the subject answer the question" I left out the fuck this time to be a little more polite but I think you all get the point. That is if anyone is still reading this thread.

PS; Theistic Rationalist seeks to describe the beliefs of individuals Judeo-Christian describes ideas. I think a debate over the ideas of the time is much more fruitful to a discussion over political theology and philosophy than a drawn out discussion over who did or did not believe in the Trinity or not. It is time for this debate to be re-framed.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 12:01 AM

Modusoperandi stated:

"Um, Atum."

Natural Law:

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

--Romans 1:19-20

Locke question still stands... Trying to change the subject is not answering the question.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 1:31 AM

Dingo,

This is a complex topic. But I think Romans 1 here points to the fact most cultures have some sort of acknowledgment of a "Creator" seen as by what is made. The question from there on is:

Who is this Creator?

That takes us back to the topic of this post which was the American Founding and how God or belief in God ties into all that. My contention is that most people have no idea where Locke got his ideas from and go around saying he was part of the "Enlightenment" without ever having read much of what he wrote. When one actually does read him for themselves it becomes clear that much of what he thought was grounded in theology. It is my contention that a lot of this theology made its way into the Declaration of Independence.

That is either true or false regardless of what Maat or the Chinese teach. What makes the talk about a Creator relevant to this is Imago Dei, love of self, and love of neighbor and how these concepts influenced Locke and his predecessors when they wrote what they wrote. I believe the "Judeo-Christian" God or god describes himself in Exodus 34:5-7. Others see the Creator differently or dismiss the whole idea. The truth of all these claims is not as germane to the whole Christian Nation debate as historical accuracy in describing them.

My original question still stands.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 2:14 AM

This is a complex topic. But I think Romans 1 here points to the fact most cultures have some sort of acknowledgment of a "Creator" seen as by what is made. The question from there on is:

Who is this Creator?

Well... there were several of them. Based on the evidence from most cultures, I'm baffled as to why you would say there is only one Creator.

I think most of these Creators "poofed" everything into existence fully formed too. So based on the fact that most cultures have some sort of acknowledgment of a Creator who "poofed" the (flat) Earth into existence fully formed all in one go, the question from there on is what?

Posted by: 386sx | December 28, 2009 6:55 AM

As far as Locke goes, the fact that he mentions Hooker brings some validity that to the thought that Locke used Christian ideas.

Then why does he cite Hooker as seeing it as self-evident, rather than revealed from scripture?

The fact that Locke's Second Treatise is is preceded by a long theological argument that has it roots in historically Christian ideas that long pre-date the Enlightenment in the First Treatise would seem to tip the scales in the balance of the latter.

Nonsense. The question of whether a certain idea is rooted in Christianity is distinct from the question of whether it originated with people who also entertained Christian ideas. Otherwise we could skip Locke, Hooker, et al. and concede immediately that the founding fathers were steeped in Christian culture.

I am therefore unimpressed by this attempt to causally link ideas from one document to another by dint of the mere mention of similar ideas elsewhere within them. This is literally a game of "Six Degrees of Jesus Christ", and as anyone who's played the more popular version of that party game knows, such connective chains are virtually guaranteed to exist, but of no special meaning.

I restate my concern that most have not read Locke deeply enough to even begin to understand all the nuances of this topic.

I understand you're frustrated, but this just won't do. If a creationist tells me the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents evolution, I can tell him how and why he's wrong. I don't just tell him he doesn't have the knowledge of physics required to understand the nuances.

I admit I haven't read much of Locke, or Hooker, or Montesquieu. I have, however, read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and found no reference to uniquely Christian ideas like Imageo Dei and "Love thy neighbour". So you then appeal to Locke for the latter (still waiting on the former) and when I check your reference I find nothing of the sort. Why don't you just lay out your entire connective chain for examination at the outset?

Posted by: DaveL | December 28, 2009 7:35 AM

DaveL - as always, your posts reveal a well-developed set of critical thinking skills. I always appreciate considering your comments.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 28, 2009 9:16 AM

I understand what you are saying. Here are a few reasons why I reject it.

One is that god's love, universal love, and other Christian concepts, are nonsense, and deserve no place in law. There is no god. Universal love is a fundamentally unstable and ridiculous notion. Rights do not come from nonsense. To employ the notion of inalienable rights as flowing from any deity or conception of deity would be suicide for the principle. Could you not accept that conceiving of rights as inalienable is simply a good idea in and of itself?

Two, rights as inalienable need not come from any religious concept. There is assuredly no direct logical line from imago dei to inalienable human rights, or else they would have developed in ancient Judaea; and on top of this, secular and atheist philosophers (Diderot, Rousseau, &c) conceived of inalienable human rights without believing in god (at least, the former didn't) or believing in the Bible and its contents, prior to the revolution. So rights need not come from imago dei, and rights need not be placed in a Christian context. Since they need not, to pose the idea that the versions of them in the US constitution come from Christianity or imago dei specifically requires rather more justification than you've given.

Third, the is-ought problem has some say here. Just because (hypothetically, and, in fact, fictionally) we are made in god's image, that is no justification for any moral action, or any action at all, including writing into law, or developing the principle of inalienable rights therefrom. Because of this, bringing up the idea that Christianity is the source of rights is an irrelevance, even if it were true.

Which it is not.

Fourth, if we accept that the constitution is based on the Bible, then the concepts in it are tainted. That would mean that the constitution is based on a crazy old book for nomads that has no basis in reality. If the concepts were based on religion, then they may well be wrong, as the basis is wrong, and there would be no reason to not include many of the barbarous laws of the Bible, or to uphold the wall of separation. Of course, that wouldn't be a problem for me. I'm not American. I follow things in America with interest, but... to me, the constitution is, as Bush said, just a piece of paper. And if the Christian Nation types were right, which they aren't, then the constitution is based on nonsense and needs to be re-written.

Of course, that's not a problem in reality, either for me or anyone else. The constitution is not based on the Bible, either directly or via Locke.

It's all just a minor historical point for me, in any case, although it is interesting to see how you've strung this out without really referring to any passages, specifically, in either of the two treatises, or any passage indicating how Locke's view immediately translates into the view of the writers of the founding documents you all seem to froth over.

Posted by: Al West | December 28, 2009 3:42 PM

I tried to link the relevant text from Locke in my last post and it did not work. It is at;

http://books.google.com/books?id=F7hFg8cyVc0C&dq=Robert+Filmer&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=sdxsSrvBMJ_FmQe57-TkBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false

it is at the start of his Second Treatise from pp192-194. I am going to try and find a text of the relevant part that I can cut and paste.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 4:22 PM

Here is the link to the exact pages I hope it works:

http://books.google.com/books?id=F7hFg8cyVc0C&dq=Robert+Filmer&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=sdxsSrvBMJ_FmQe57-TkBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 4:34 PM

Dave L,

Sorry for the jumbled mess with the links but here here is Locke with the comments I made above where they were intended to go:

"TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man."

The whole Declaration is essentially based on the concept of "all men are created equal."
This was the foundation of a legal argument that states that the King is not above the law because of some divine command. This doctrine is rooted in the concept Imago Dei, love of self, and neighbor. To take one part of the concept and leave out the other two is not consistent with Christian theology and was foreign to the founding political theology.
After a long theological reasoning that disputes Filmer's claim that Adam was born with an innate right to rule over his posterity Locke starts off his second Treatise with what was quoted above.

Locke Continues and eventually quotes Hooker:

"A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

Sec. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,

"The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no less their duty, to love others than themselves; for seeing those things which are equal, must needs all have one measure; if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire, which is undoubtedly in other men, being of one and the same nature? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this desire, must needs in all respects grieve them as much as me; so that if I do harm, I must look to suffer, there being no reason that others should shew greater measure of love to me, than they have by me shewed unto them: my desire therefore to be loved of my equals in nature as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to them-ward fully the like affection; from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant, Eccl. Pol. Lib. 1."

This is essentially expounded on the his first words and adding to his case other historical arguments that state the the King is not above the law because all men are equal. Then he ties in the whole idea of God's workmanship that clearly shows a connection between equality, Imago Dei, and love of self rooted in love of God.

"But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

I cannot see how you state that I cite sources that back up the Judeo-Christian teaching on Imago Dei, say you went back and read it and missed Locke tying together how Jesus sums up the Law:

Love God, in that love realize you are His workmanship and love yourself, out of reverence of the image of God in others love them too. He states very clearly that this is the foundation for such rights as Life, Liberty, and Property. Now Jefferson left out property but it made its way back into the Constitution. I think he left it out because most slaves at the time were considered property and some might have taken him to mean that they had a right to their slaves but that is just a thought. The fact is that there is a theological argument that Locke is making that is foundational to his philosophical points about government. This line of reasoning is traditionally Christian.

Show me any other culture that tied all three of these concepts found in one verse of the Bible together and argued for equality from this perspective. I am fairly sure you will not and thus the term Judeo-Christian.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 4:52 PM

Dave L,

What does gravitation have to do with political theology?

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 5:05 PM

KoI,

The fact is the Law of Universal Gravitation, too, came from reason and observation. Surely Newton, as an educated man of the time, was aware of the doctrine of general revelation. Do you want to claim the inverse-square law arises from Christian teachings?

Furthermore, it hardly matters whether or not Locke et al. believed this doctrine, it remains just as ludicrous, and the ideas they derived about the worldly realm using reason and the observation thereof remain distinct from any religious teaching.

Posted by: DaveL | December 28, 2009 5:09 PM

With all the above stated, can anyone find the three concepts bundled together in one verse that was used to argue that all men were created equal in any other culture? We have to actually read the relevant documents before we make conclusions. Most do not and the myth that the concept of rights is not found in the Bible continues to be spread along with the idea that the references to God in the DOI were "Deist"

Here is a sermon by Samuel West interpolated with corresponding phrases from the DOI by Jeffery Morrison:

""The great Creator ["their Creator"], having designed the human race for society, has made us dependent on one another for happiness ["the pursuit of Happiness"]. He has so constituted us that it becomes both our duty and interest to seek the public good; and that we may be the more firmly engaged to promote each other's welfare, the Deity has endowed us ["endowed by their Creator"] with tender and social affections . . . . The Deity has also invested us with moral powers and faculties, by which we are enabled to discern the difference between right and wrong, truth ["self-evident" truths] and falsehood, good and evil . . . . This proves that, in what is commonly called a state of nature, we are the subjects of the divine law ["Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"] and government; that the Deity is our supreme magistrate, who has written his law in our hearts [again, "self-evident" truths], and will reward or punish us according as we obey or disobey his commands ["the Supreme Judge of the World"]."

Now Jonathon Rowe correctly points out the West may have been a Unitiarian. But if one compares the language he uses with other staunch Calvinists like Witherspoon it is all about he same. The phrase "Supreme Judge of the World" was borrowed from Jonathan Edwards himself. It is not well know that the Continental Congress put the last two God phrased into the DOI. Many do not know that Adams added the second. It is Morrison's contention that this was done to appeal to the Calvinists and get them to support the war. I agree with him. He has quotes from a Hessian soldier and King George himself stating that the revolution was a "Presbyterian Revolution." Pretty solid evidence the the DOI was not only an interposition but had at very least two Calvinist/Orthodox references to God imbedded in the text.

We will leave the whole "religion was left to the states" discussion for another day for those who want to retort back the the "Godless Constitution" argument. This whole topic is too complex to boil down to the everyone pulling out a few isolated quotes from the whole "Liars" motif and beating their chest in victory on a site where 99% of the commenters all agree with each other. Actually reading the history and primary sources and taking the "culture war" where some might challenge you would allow some get our of the kiddie pool. Sitting here taking pot shots at anyone who seems to possibly agree with anything Barton says is childish.

I appreciate Howard Stern 5th grade humor as much as anyone else. I think many of the comments on here are hilarious. Even the ones I do not agree with. I like the way Ed goes about getting his message out most of the time. I just think there is a remnant on this site that what to do the Howard Stern thing when it is not appropriate. Sometimes the level of discussion needs to be raised.

I thank Dave L. and others that actually discussed this with me. It showed my some wholes in my arguments and made me think. That is the part I most enjoy about this blog. It gets me out of my comfort zone and challenges me to think. That is on most days.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 5:29 PM

His entire First Treatise is based entirely on a mythological character who goes by the name of "Adam", who he thought was a real person. Yet somehow this nothing at all to impugn Locke's credibility.

Posted by: 386sx | December 28, 2009 5:31 PM

Dave L stated:

"Furthermore, it hardly matters whether or not Locke et al. believed this doctrine, it remains just as ludicrous, and the ideas they derived about the worldly realm using reason and the observation thereof remain distinct from any religious teaching."

You all are the one's that want to make Locke some enlightenment figure and proof that Jefferson used Deistic language in the DOI and deny the influence the Judeo-Christian ideas had on the founding. It does very much matter what Locke thought because many of his ides were foundational to the DOI. Nice try to dodge.

Translation: I never read Locke closely enough and I regret admitting he influenced the founding now that his theology has been revealed by someone who actually went to the trouble to read what he said.

You also stated:

"The fact is the Law of Universal Gravitation, too, came from reason and observation. Surely Newton, as an educated man of the time, was aware of the doctrine of general revelation. Do you want to claim the inverse-square law arises from Christian teachings?"
You would have to go and read where Newton said he got his ideas from. If it was reason unaided by general revelation then it has nothing to do with Christian teaching. This really has nothing to do with the founding of America though which was the topic of the post. I repeat not all ideas are biblical or Christian. There are many that I consider good ideas which are neither. Do not make what I am saying out to be more than it is to make it look like I am exaggerating. Back to Locke please? Do not change the subject answer the question.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 5:46 PM

dogmeatib,

That would be... hard to demonstrate. I'm fairly sure that no one, native American or otherwise, actually lives according to the principles referred to (love of "god", self, neighbour), although they might claim to. I'd like to learn more (I'm an anthropologist, although I specialise in Austronesian societies), so if you have any evidence of the claim (not to sound too doubtful!), I'd love to see it.

KoI,

If the principles in the constitution do not directly derive from Christianity, then I simply find it bizarre that you would call them Christian in any way. Christianity is a fairly specific thing, as is reason, as is deism. They cannot be said to have influenced things directly simply by existing at the same time as the thing said to have been influenced, which seems to be the substance here.

I'm also curious as to what you mean by the idea that religion was left to the states. Do you mean that the constitution permits theocracy when confined within state borders? I find that rather hard to believe, so it is surely something else.

The idea that "all men are created equal" is not Christian. So what if all men are made in the image and likeness of god? That doesn't make them equal on the earth, as we know from the hierarchical nature of most mainstream religious organisations and theocracies. It is not something that necessarily logically follows. Arguments from nature, on the state of man in a "primitive" state, are the source of this, and we find them in secular contexts in Hobbes, Rousseau, and, it seems, Locke. They need not be connected to religion and at the time of the American revolution, they don't seem to have been, certainly among the educated, the liberals, and the French intellectuals who... well, you don't really need the history lesson, I'm sure.

Posted by: Al West | December 28, 2009 5:52 PM

KoI,

The fundamental problem with your argument is that, if taken to its logical conclusion, then the Holocaust was inspired by the Bible. Hitler used religious language, quoted Luther and other religious leaders, was Christian himself, therefore the language for genocide is founded in the Bible. I'm certain we could find a number of passages that support genocidal practices. I'm equally certain that you could find statements by religious leaders quoted by Hitler that support antisemitism and oppression of Jews.

Now before you get upset and/or dismiss this as an unwarranted attack on Christianity, let me point out that throughout history, even within Locke's own time, people used or didn't use the Bible to support their positions. Long before Locke rulers and authoritarians used the Bible to support their absolutist regimes, while Locke was in exile Charles II and James II both tried to claim biblical support for their efforts to expand the power of the king. Louis XIV claimed divine right and was supported in this claim by French cardinals who quoted Bible verse supporting this absolutist principle. It didn't matter if they were Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, leaders throughout the Christian world claimed that the Bible supported their authoritarian rule implicitly and explicitly.

The question I have to ask is, how were they wrong but your interpretation is correct? You are literally claiming that over 1000 years of religious and secular leaders are wrong, all of those who claimed that the the Bible supported divine right, absolute rule, and all of their claims that the Bible supported their authoritarian regimes that granted little or no rights, recognized few or any liberties, granted kings and clergy all of the power, all of this, according to you, and the highly respected church and secular leaders are all wrong. According to this, though Locke and the founding fathers didn't quote the Bible when it comes to these principles, the DoI only makes a vague reference to a creator, the Constitution doesn't mention God at all, but despite all of this evidence, they got it from the Bible.

But, if you argue that, then how do you argue that Louis XIV didn't get his political ideals from the Bible? Or Peter the Great? How do you argue that Hitler didn't get the holocaust from the Bible? If they all quote the Bible or refer to the Bible or someone else who did, or wrote something that talks about a creator or a God, no matter how benign a reference, how did it not all come from the Bible? Both good and bad?

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 5:58 PM

But this point is irrelevant to the whole discussion of where Locke's ideas came from.

It's not irrelevant, because presumably it was one of the things that were "revealed" to Locke by God. He did write an entire treatise about it, for crying out loud. :P So, he was wrong about where his ideas came from. (Assuming he actually thought they came from being "revealed" to people by God.)

Posted by: 386sx | December 28, 2009 6:01 PM

So what if all men are made in the image and likeness of god? That doesn't make them equal on the earth, as we know from the hierarchical nature of most mainstream religious organisations and theocracies. It is not something that necessarily logically follows.

Yeah, that's a fine example of one of those non-sequiturs that religious people take for granted. People are created in the image of God, therefore they are all equal. How do you get from point A to point B!

It would make more sense if they would just flat out state that people are created equal, therefore they are created equal. I mean, it would be a (yet another) religious bald assertion, but at least it would make some kind of sense!

Posted by: 386sx | December 28, 2009 6:13 PM

dogmeatib,

I believe that Iroquoian cosmology is the following: The universe has three tiers. We (by which traditionally, the Iroquois, but by extension, everyone) live in the middle tier. Above us are the gods, or rather, higher men, and it is from them that we descend (see the creation myth of the wife of a chief digging a hole... I think it's quite famous). The evidence for their existence is above us; the stars being their cooking fires, meteors being their faeces, that sort of thing. Below us are... I can't quite remember whether they're giants or dwarves. I think it's dwarves. Small, chthonian humans. Btw, I'm getting all of this from what I can recall from Levi-Strauss (1985), The Jealous Potter. I don't have any resources to hand about others I'm afraid.

I suppose you could take it to mean that we are made in the image of the gods, or are a reflection of godliness. It's not direct, however.

Iroquois society was fairly well documented, though. I think descent was reckoned in the female line. Some people have said that, even before the founding of the Iroquois confederation, some Iroquois groups had democratic systems in operations. I'd rather not speculate, as that's a tricky area, especially with its implications for the founding of the USA. There's a book about that ("Debating Democracy"). It seems to make anthropologists look like bad guys for not supporting the central thesis, and I think it's endorsed by a creationist...

Anyway, I don't think, based on the tiny amount of evidence that I can find, that Iroquois societies unified thought about individuals as being in the image of god with universal rights and loving one's neighbour. I can't say that that's not the case, however.

I would agree with KoI that the principles are rather specific to Christianity as a group, but their implications are not easy to discern. Certainly, deriving rights from imago dei is a tad bizarre, as many societies exist with individual rights that need not come from something like that.

Posted by: Al West | December 28, 2009 7:02 PM

Al,

As far as number 4 above I do not believe it. I said that it is a document based on Christian ideas. There is a huge difference.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 7:25 PM

Anyway, I don't think, based on the tiny amount of evidence that I can find, that Iroquois societies unified thought about individuals as being in the image of god with universal rights and loving one's neighbour. I can't say that that's not the case, however.

Al,

That was actually my point. If you create a specific scenario where one of the aspects has to be a belief that you are specially created, separate from the rest of nature, etc., then you set guidelines that are inherently Judeo-Christian in their requirements, IE the dice are loaded, the game is rigged, etc.

The Iroquoian groups did, on the other hand, see themselves as part of nature and generally responsible to all. That's why I would argue that the culture does show two of the three elements and a modified version of the first based upon their own understanding of the world and "creation."

I would agree with KoI that the principles are rather specific to Christianity as a group, but their implications are not easy to discern. Certainly, deriving rights from imago dei is a tad bizarre, as many societies exist with individual rights that need not come from something like that.

My point was to argue that the "test" was rigged because it had to fit within a specific Judeo-Christian guideline that is really cherry-picked to coincide with the principles of modern governmental theory (individual rights, etc.)

Some people have said that, even before the founding of the Iroquois confederation, some Iroquois groups had democratic systems in operations.

Your recollection is basically correct. There is major debate over the founding of the Haudenausanee League (Iroquois is a misnomer), most Europeans argue for a date in the mid 15th century based on the Eurocentric argument that really nothing could have happened much more than 50 years before Columbus. ;o)

There is evidence that the league was founded more than 400 years earlier but it's caught up in the argument that there must be European sources to support this contention when such sources couldn't possibly exist. Oral traditions, Wampum belts, and archaeoastronomy argue for the earlier date.

I suppose you could take it to mean that we are made in the image of the gods, or are a reflection of godliness. It's not direct, however.

That was, again, my point. With a loaded set of criteria it is going to be virtually impossible for any culture (including European culture) to actually meet the guidelines established. I would argue that the cooperative nature of the society, based on a number of factors but including a spiritual belief in cooperative action meets the criteria with minimal "bending."

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 28, 2009 7:52 PM

Dog meat stated:

"Given the fact that you've convinced yourself that it all revolves around the Bible and the Judeo-Christian concept of God, little would suffice to prove to you that other cultures embrace similar concepts of divine, individual, community in principle."

I am open to hearing it. But if it is some general thing like Maat that can mean almost anything it is not the same as a specific verse from the Bible whose concept shows up clearly in the writings of a guy like Locke that some people even go so far as to call an atheist. He was not even close to being a Deist.

I have stated a million times that not all ideas come from the Bible. The Bible itself even says this when it talks about God revealing himself to the gentile through what is made. But to be relevant to Locke or the founding the ideas have to be the same not some vague notion of some general concepts. I am not making a truth claim argument here. This is a historical and theological discussion.

So if you have something say it I would sincerely like to hear it. The Wiki comment was not a swipe at your intelligence. You are probably more formally educated than I am. What you consider arrogance is my challenge for a group of people that are probably more education than most on this blog to put the time in that they do in their areas of discipline and actually learn about this topic before blasting people. I do not think that is an un "reason" able challenge. Pun intended.

I think it is arrogant to imply that everything that every Christian says about God influences on American is wrong and subject to ridicule when most of the people doing the ridicule do not have a clue about 95% of the little bit I have wrote on this thread that barely scratches the surface. You guys want to pick on Barton but do not realize the brilliant men that have researched this like Brian Tierney state some the the same things and are not so easy to dismiss.

Pot and Kettle

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 8:00 PM

Dogmeat stated about the Native Americans:

"Show me any other culture that tied all three of these concepts found in one verse of the Bible together and argued for equality from this perspective. I am fairly sure you will not and thus the term Judeo-Christian.
KoI,

Actually quite a few Native American cultures lived according to these concepts."

He now states:

"Al,

That was actually my point. If you create a specific scenario where one of the aspects has to be a belief that you are specially created, separate from the rest of nature, etc., then you set guidelines that are inherently Judeo-Christian in their requirements, IE the dice are loaded, the game is rigged, etc.

The Iroquoian groups did, on the other hand, see themselves as part of nature and generally responsible to all. That's why I would argue that the culture does show two of the three elements and a modified version of the first based upon their own understanding of the world and "creation."

I would agree with KoI that the principles are rather specific to Christianity as a group, but their implications are not easy to discern. Certainly, deriving rights from imago dei is a tad bizarre, as many societies exist with individual rights that need not come from something like that.
My point was to argue that the "test" was rigged because it had to fit within a specific Judeo-Christian guideline that is really cherry-picked to coincide with the principles of modern governmental theory (individual rights, etc.)"

If that is what you were trying to say you should have said it from the start do not back down not unless you are going to admit your were wrong. You all stated that Locke was part of the Enlightenment. I have shown his teaching are very much of part of historical Christianity and that the foundation of his ideas was the three concepts I mentioned above unified into "all men are created equal". I quoted Locke and not one person has come up with another coherent explanation of what was saying. All we have is these claims that say, "Well that may be a Christian idea but no uniquely". This is a far cry from all the "Deist" nonsense but it is still not the truth.

Either Locke's ideas were grounded in the Bible and the historically Christian understanding of interpositon, natural law, self evident truth, reason aided by revelation... or they were not. Either these ideas made it into the Declaration or they did not. Calvinist terms like "Supreme Judge of the World" either were added to try and gather the support of those that joined the cause in such large numbers that King George called it the "Presbyterian Revolution" or not?

These are the questions that will begin to get us down the path toward the right framing of this discussion.

I throw out the questions I have been asking at AC for a while now here for people to chew on:

What Christian ideas, if any, helped progress us toward the modern world?

and

What Christian ideas, if any, helped derail us toward progressing toward the modern world?

Chime in!

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 8:28 PM

Leni stated:

"Along the lines of what dogmeat said about divine right, we could just as easily point out that it was precisely these Judeo-Christian ideological roots that were (and are) the limiting factor in achieving practical equality."

Make your case. But first read Locke and his version of what "man" means in creation. It means men and women. He went into a long argument refuting Filmer that stated that any power that Adam received to rule as creation was given to Eve as well because both were given the same command in Genesis 1:28.

I already opened the door for arguments about how some Judeo-Christian ideas opened the door for oppression with my comment about Christian ideas above. I agree with you. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. These discussions do matter when the world wants to discuss human rights. We have to look at the origins of these ideas and where they came from. We discard many at our own peril in my view. If there are no inalienable rights then big brother gets to define what they are. No thanks. See Rwanda and Hitler for evidence that dehumanization of a group leads to genocide.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 8:54 PM

Modusoperandi stated:

"Luckily for them, being theology, the "other guy" is always wrong), but if one guy says "God's Word says I should fuck you up" and another says "God's Word says I should buy you a puppy", I'm going to hang around with the latter and studiously avoid the former.'

I agree and that is funny as hell! As far as Darwin I am not blaming him or evolution. I am blaming Hitler taking those ideas to some idiotic extremes. Maybe it was the latter and not the former I have no ideas because I have not read enough about to really comment in depth. The point I was making is that there are all kinds of ideas that are Christian and use the Bible that I think are shitty. Obvioiusly, there are many I think are good. I think Locke's view of God leads to people who want to buy you a puppy. I think Filmer's leads to someoone saying I want to fuck you up. Thank God for us all that Locke's understanding is the one that made it into our founding ideals and not Filmer's.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 28, 2009 11:44 PM

KoI,

What makes you so convinced that inalienable rights must derive from imago dei? That's what I don't understand. It seems far more likely that the idea comes from the concept of man "in nature", something a lot of 17th and 18th century political philosophers used to couch their arguments in. Bearing in mind that Locke is far from the only source for the various founding documents of the USA, and that Rousseau, Diderot, and others came to the conclusion that men have inalienable rights in a secular fashion, it seems strange to conclude that, even if Locke derived rights from imago dei, the inalienable rights referred to in the DoI also, therefore, derive from imago dei.

As for the Iroquois democracy thingy...

I'd hate to speculate. I don't know all the facts, certainly, but I think it's difficult to extrapolate data about political systems from archeological investigations, and oral history is... problematic. In Melanesia, oral history has been a relatively unbroken tradition passed from grandparent to grandchild in secret for hundreds of years. A man might "own" a history, or a piece of history. It's reliable enough to write history on. Not to sound too insensitive and sceptical, but I'm not sure how trustworthy modern native American oral history is. By that I mean that I really don't know; I haven't read any studies. Since I have a lot of free time before the new year begins, I might look into it.

Posted by: Al West | December 29, 2009 6:22 AM

DaveL stated:

"I know Locke made theological arguments. He also made secular arguments, and you don't get to claim his secular arguments as part of Christian teachings just because the same man wrote them. This is what I meant by your game of "Six Degrees".

If the supposed "secular" arguments are underpinned by theological argument that are Christian in nature I can. This is a straw man. I never said all arguments are Christian. You are putting words in my mouth to take the focus off of the Christian nature of Locke's argument for Life, Liberty, and Property that are based on Love of God, love of self grounded in an understanding the one is God's workmanship, and love of neighbor based on the same. "All men created equal". In fact, I have said several time that not all good ideas are in the Bible or part of Christian teaching.

I did state that Newton may have got some of his ideas from general revelation. That does not make them Christian necessarily. Locke is a black and white issue. The reasoning he used at the beginning of the First Treatise is do doubt Christian. If it is not make your case as to why?

Therefore to call the U.S. "founded on Judeo-Christian principles" is a lie of omission. It is meant to imply there's something uniquely Christian about the government of the United States, when if anything the tyranny it was created to oppose was more so. In fact, the United States was distinguished from other nations of the time in its remarkably secular nature.

Again you are talking about the Constitution it seems. I am talking strictly about the Declaration of Independence at this point. All I stated was that it was heavily influence by Locke and that the key phrase that underpins the rest of the document is "all men are created equal". That phrase is based on a long line of Christian teaching that shows up in Locke's supposedly secular "Second Treatise". No one has disputed that because they cannot.

I do not want to get into this because this thread is dragging on but I think by secular you mean no God. That is not what most Founders thought secular meant. It meant no established church.

DaveL also stated:

"That's just the point- nobody can prevent you claiming that literally anything was aided by "general revelation". It's that very device that you've been using to claim ideas for Christianity that show no basis for it in the documentary record. There can be no rational discussion about the origins of ideas until you finally bury that ridiculous doctrine."

No basis in the documentary record? If you do not like my interpretation of what Locke clearly states in the first lines of the "Second Treatise" that are absolutely foundational to the rest of his arguments that made their way into the Declaration of Independence then lets hear your interpretation. Make your case how what he said was secular. Put all the smoke screens aside and lets focus on "all men are created equal" and Locke's thoughts on that issue. You are the one that is all over the map. Go back and read this thread I have been trying to discuss Locke from the start and no one has taken me on. Just tangent after tangent. Hitler, Newton, Native Americans, Maat, the Chinese? Let's talk Locke!

I am going to give someone a chance to make a coherent argument of where the idea of "all men are created equal" that the corresponding talk about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness came from. I presented Locke's own words that are absolutely consistent with Judeo-Christian teaching on Imago Dei and love of neighbor that come from the Bible. Present your superior case.

Posted by: King of Ireland | December 29, 2009 1:35 PM

Make your case. But first read Locke and his version of what "man" means in creation. It means men and women.

Well, perhaps you can explain why this particular sentiment of Locke's didn't even make it into the cultural miliue, much less the DoI or the Constitution. It's probably because the love is not *actually* universal. It's a platitude that refers to a specific set of people in a specific time for specific reasons.

Aside from that, no, I do not need to read Locke to make the case that Christianity has a problematic history with regard to equality. Since you already know this, and you know I know you know it, I don't really see a need to get into it.

I already opened the door for arguments about how some Judeo-Christian ideas opened the door for oppression with my comment about Christian ideas above. I agree with you. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. These discussions do matter when the world wants to discuss human rights. We have to look at the origins of these ideas and where they came from. We discard many at our own peril in my view. If there are no inalienable rights then big brother gets to define what they are. No thanks. See Rwanda and Hitler for evidence that dehumanization of a group leads to genocide.

Since when does not considering the DoI a Christian document equate to the dehumanization of people and genocide? Jesus Christ, KoI, we had the damn thing here and still managed a genocide or two ourselves, not to mention centuries of inequality, oppression, and unspeakable discrimination. Who do you think you are kidding?

Posted by: Leni | December 29, 2009 8:35 PM

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

--Romans 1:19-20

That's some pretty funny irony there, since the world wasn't created. That's almost as funny as the one where John Locke wrote a whole treatise about the fairy tale of Adam and Eve, except he thought it was real. Oops!

Gotta love theology because you can get everything completely bassed baskwards and wrong, but it still is "divinely revealed" and "clearly seen".

Posted by: 386sx | December 30, 2009 10:57 AM