Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Carpathian vs. the sword, blindfold and scales of justice

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
20120821-justice-sword
Justice, blindfolded, with scales and sword (HT: Washington State)

Justice, classically, is often portrayed as a blindfolded lady carrying scales and a sword.

This represents the challenge of impartiality and responsible and fair evaluation of cases in light of facts, rights, value and values that must consistently lie behind the unfortunate reality that the state and its officers must wield the sword in defence of the civil peace of justice.

Otherwise, the state descends into incompetence or even the dark night of tyranny and its consequences: injustice, undermining of rights (especially for the weak) and loss of legitimacy that justifies a demand for reformation.

Thus, justice is inevitably a moral issue and therefore inevitably raises the question of the status of OUGHT in light of the IS-OUGHT gap. Thence — given that rights are binding morally grounded expectations that we be respected in terms of our lives, liberty, innocent reputation and more — we face the challenge that in the end there is but one truly solid answer as to the IS that grounds OUGHT.

An answer that was aptly summed up by the fifty-odd US Founders in the 1776 US Declaration of Independence:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15, 13:1 – 10], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

All of this becomes highly relevant when we see how Carpathian reacted to Anthropic commenting on Rom 12 – 13 in a recent thread:

>>A, 17: I’d also point out that Romans 12 states that we are to leave revenge up to God, which is usually taken to mean in the afterlife. However, Romans 13 goes on to say that the government has been given the sword to act as God’s servant in punishing evil and rewarding good. Thus, leaving it up to God does not mean doing nothing. Rather, it means leaving the punishment on this Earth to those who have God given authority to punish on this Earth, plus God in the life to come.

C, 23:

[Citing A:] Rather, it means leaving the punishment on this Earth to those who have God given authority to punish on this Earth, plus God in the life to come.

This is a very frightening statement.

This is the type of thinking that leads fundamentalist groups to believe they have a right to kill infidels.

No one has a right from God to punish anyone.

No one has a right from God to tell anyone else what to do.

This instant leap to an invidious comparison of the Rom 13:4 principle that :

. . . [the civil authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

. . . to the depredations of Islamist terrorists and the like reflects an unfortunately common secularist indoctrination in our day that instantly associates religious views with utter irrationality, inclination to violent oppression and worse.

Such fear-mongering blind prejudice, hostile (or in some cases even bigoted . . . ) contempt and projection, already need to be corrected. (Cf here, earlier at UD in reply to AS.)

But the matter gets deeper, as C kept on going in reaction to remonstrance:

>>No one has a right from God to punish anyone.

No one has a right from God to tell anyone else what to do.

This includes Christians, Muslims and anyone who believes God chooses sides in the affairs of humans . . . .

It is simply not acceptable to take any teachings from any specific holy book and claim that they are applicable to those who do not hold that specific holy book as being a true representation of God’s intent.

I do not bow to the authority of any religion and no one should be expected to . . . .

Religion should stay in churches and in the minds of men and women. It has no business in the laws of man.

Freedom of religion allows people to believe anything they want, not to act on those beliefs.>>

And, on and on.

For telling instance (and the reason this post is titled as above):

>>Do you not understand what the term “might makes right” means?

It means if that if I don’t agree with the wielder of that sword, it is completely irrelevant what I think or whether or not I am right.

If a Christian in a land where the laws are derived from a non-Christian holy book has problems with a law, and the Christians do not wield the sword, then that law is going to apply, regardless of whether it flies in the face of Christian teachings.

The same applies to non-Christians here.

Religion has no business in law-making.>>

The first problem here is that the instant leaping to the most extreme fear-mongering and demand for a lockout of the religious already speaks volumes.

But also, it is worth the while to note a key distinction between philosophy and worldviews-rooted analysis on the one hand (which can and does profitably discuss what we may term the God of the philosophers), and religions and their particular traditions on the other. In particular, it is a serious argument that we are morally governed, under the compelling force of OUGHT in recognition of our duties one to the other, and that this is rooted in our common human nature thus the dignity and rights that that common humanity confers, based on the Eternal One, our Creator who endowed us with that dignity and rights.

Indeed, that is exactly the stand of the US Founders in 1776.

So too, it is not surprising that — and this was cited at no. 2 in the very same thread of discussion (before C’s outburst) —  we saw from Locke citing Hooker using Aristotle, in his second treatise on civil government, Ch 2:

>>. . . 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 . . . 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 themward fully the like affection. [–> Thus, we most easily perceive and regard this duty when owed to us, now we must see that others of like duty are owed the same . . . where our evident natural constitution, our surrounding world and our interior life join together in speaking to us through heart, mind and conscience, but are we inclined to listen?] 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 . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80]>>

And, even more relevantly [ cf. no 4 in the thread], Blackstone’s 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, famously observes:

>>Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 – 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 – 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 – 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian’s Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe].>>

Why was all of this brushed aside in such an urgent fury to lash out at and lock out the religious from the public square?

First, because of a now deeply ingrained, indoctrinated ignorance about and/or distortion of the major contribution of the Judaeo-Christian tradition to the rise of modern liberty.

Second, there is a deep rooted ignorance of the inevitability of the roots of rights, justice and law being moral, putting the IS-OUGHT GAP and its resolution in the IS that grounds OUGHT at the centre of reflection on law. (Those who ignore, denigrate or undermine that connexion undercut the foundations of the very justice they claim to advocate.)

Third, in our day, there is a linked failure to properly appreciate the significance of natural moral law for the foundations of justice, which is intelligible to the reasonable and responsible man Hooker and Aristotle discussed.

SB picked that thread of thought up aptly, at No 41:

>>Carpathian,

Do you not understand what the term “might makes right” means?

Yes, and it should be avoided at all costs. In keeping with that point, the role of religion can be overplayed or underplayed. Both radical theocracy, which you rightly fear, and radical secularism, which you don’t seem to fear enough, are to be avoided.

The Declaration of Independence explained it in just the right proportions: Natural rights come from the “Laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God.” Not from any individual expression of religious beliefs, at one extreme, and not from a secular state, at the other extreme

With that standard, everyone, including leaders of the state are bound to, and accountable to, the “natural moral law,” which defines which laws are just and unjust. Accordingly, the civil laws are supposed to be informed by that same natural moral law, which holds everyone accountable, including the lawmakers.>>

Anthropic adds, just as aptly, at No. 43:

>>C 23

“No one has a right from God to tell anyone else what to do.”

This isn’t a college dorm bull session, C, where you try to justify cheating on an exam — or a girlfriend.

As any grownup knows, society absolutely depends upon people respecting the laws. Yes, those funny things that tell people what to do. Don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t murder, for instance. They apply to everyone, including those who don’t believe that God gave the Ten Commandments — that’s where they came from.

Yes, our society historically does claim a right from God to prohibit people from doing these things. Plus slavery, rape, and child abuse.

If these prohibitions are simply man-made constructions, then they can be changed willy-nilly, as they have no basis that must be respected. As the late Yale Law Prof Arthur Leff put it, man-made law is always subject to the grand “Sez who?” Divine law is not.

Professor Leff, an agnostic, had no theological ax to grind. He just pointed out that, without an ultimate Lawgiver, laws have no basis beyond the cultural consensus of the moment. We might feel that torturing babies for entertainment is wrong, but that’s just our opinion.

Leff ultimately concludes that good and evil really do exist. However, he is frustrated because, without an “unevaluated Evaluator”, there is no ultimate basis for that knowledge.

Ironically, you end up sawing off the branch you are sitting on. Your claim to individual freedom to do as you please only has traction in a society that has a high regard for human dignity & worth. Historically that’s pretty rare.

In fact, historically it has arisen only in Judeo-Christian cultures which regard mankind as being made in the image of God. Without that God-based idea, no one has any reason to honor your choices.

Just ask any North Korean.>>

This brings us to the background but highly relevant issue that evolutionary materialist scientism and secularism undermine recognition of responsible, reasonable freedom, and force the conclusion that might and manipulation make ‘right.” So, it is quite natural for those whose thought is in thralldom to such, to equate the sword with raw force, and (having missed the point of justice) build agendas of manipulation, control and domination.

If you doubt me, note here the implications of Prof Provine’s keynote remarks at the U Tenn 1998 Darwin Day celebration:

>>

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . 
 
The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . . . Without free will, justification for revenge disappears [–> notice, the fallacious equation of justice with revenge] and rehabilitation is the main job of judicial systems and prisons. [NB: As C. S Lewis warned, in the end, this means: reprogramming through new conditioning determined by the power groups controlling the society and its prisons. On where that may all too easily end up, ask the ghosts of the Gulag Archipelago.] We will all live in a better society when the myth of free will is dispelled . . .>>

On the contrary, when responsible, rational freedom informed by natural moral law is undermined, reason and justice will increasingly be driven out of the public square by those whose credo implies that might and manipulation make ‘right’ or ‘truth’ or ‘justice.’

As, is patently happening all around us.

We must wake up and seek sound reformation, before it is too late. END

Comments
kairosfocus @98 I have to agree with Mapou’s comment @97. Especially since your overlong comments feature reposts of extended quotes at length. An unconvincing quote from a long-dead guy does not become convincing with reuse. You replied to Mapou that,
...sometimes, specific documentation from and step by step argument building on original sources is required to correct deeply entrenched secularist myths.
You cannot correct anything with your posts because many of the “original sources” are irrelevant or cherry picked. Certainly you should realize that you cannot rebut secular or rational arguments with scripture; scripture has no inherent authority; you have to establish that first, which you have not even tried to do. Certainly you should know that rational people do not accept any kind of Proof from Authority. There’s no one you can quote who, on the strength of their reputation, can prove anything except that “that was their opinion”.
The lessons of sound history were written in blood and tears. Those who brush them aside, reject or ignore such doom themselves to have to learn them again, at much the same price.
The lessons of actual history are somewhat different from those your revisions propose. @100 you wrote that,
Bland denial of abundantly demonstrated facts that obviously do not fit how you prefer history to have run.
The volume of “evidence” you think you’ve provided does not make up for its thinness or irrelevance. The sheer age of your evidence indicates that you don’t appreciate that our knowledge of ourselves and the world has changed in the last decades or centuries. The fact that most of your “evidence” consists of biblical verses demonstrates your obliviousness to the fundamental problem: your effort to negate our Religious Liberty in the name of your religious agenda.
Speaks volumes on the sort of deep-seated hostility driven by radical secularism that we are seeing.
Secularists mostly just hate efforts to force religious practices on them. Your comment @101 is a good example. They have reason to fear your efforts, and to resist them. sean s.sean samis
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
JimFit @95
...that’s why i said that Democracy is fictitious!
A lot of silly rationalizations and blather ending in this. Whatever democracy is, it ain’t fiction. sean s.sean samis
August 2, 2015
August
08
Aug
2
02
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
F/N: It is always helpful in highly polarised situations to put on the table the central ethical teaching of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, in the words of its main teacher in his most famous sermon: _______________ >> Matthew 5-7English Standard Version (ESV) The Sermon on the Mount 5 Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. The Beatitudes 2 And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: 3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons[a] of God. 10 “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Salt and Light 13 “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. Christ Came to Fulfill the Law 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Anger 21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother[c] will be liable to judgment; whoever insults[d] his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell[e] of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.[f] Lust 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. Divorce 31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Oaths 33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.[g] Retaliation 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Love Your Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Giving to the Needy 6 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. The Lord's Prayer 5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. 7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.[j] 10 Your kingdom come, your will be done,[k] on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread,[l] 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.[m] 14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Fasting 16 “And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Lay Up Treasures in Heaven 19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[n] destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.[o] Do Not Be Anxious 25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?[p] 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. 34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. Judging Others 7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. 6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. Ask, and It Will Be Given 7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! The Golden Rule 12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[q] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. A Tree and Its Fruit 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. I Never Knew You 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Build Your House on the Rock 24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” The Authority of Jesus 28 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, 29 for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes. Footnotes: Matthew 5:9 Greek huioi; see Preface Matthew 5:16 Or house. 16Let your light so shine before others that Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts insert without cause Matthew 5:22 Greek says Raca to (a term of abuse) Matthew 5:22 Greek Gehenna; also verses 29, 30 Matthew 5:26 Greek kodrantes, Roman copper coin (Latin quadrans) worth about 1/64 of a denarius (which was a day's wage for a laborer) Matthew 5:37 Or the evil one Matthew 5:40 Greek chiton, a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin Matthew 5:47 Or brothers and sisters. The plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) refers to siblings in a family. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, adelphoi may refer either to brothers or to brothers and sisters Matthew 6:9 Or Let your name be kept holy, or Let your name be treated with reverence Matthew 6:10 Or Let your kingdom come, let your will be done Matthew 6:11 Or our bread for tomorrow Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one; some manuscripts add For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever. Amen Matthew 6:19 Or worm; also verse 20 Matthew 6:24 Greek mammon, a Semitic word for money or possessions Matthew 6:27 Or a single cubit to his stature; a cubit was about 18 inches or 45 centimeters Matthew 7:13 Some manuscripts For the way is wide and easy>> _______________ It is worth the while to add some almost at random illustrative clippings from apostles, on the moral imperatives of sound discipleship, i.e. actual adherence to and participation in what the Christian faith calls for:
PETER: 1 Pet 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory[b] and of God rests upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? PAUL: Eph 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. JOHN: 1 Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's[b] seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. Love One Another 11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brothers,[c] that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. 19 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him . . .
Those who wish to imagine and project that this life and his teaching did not make a crucial difference and effect across time many waves of reform, are either profoundly and willfully ignorant in the teeth of easily accessible corrective and balancing information, or else they are worse than that, much worse than that. KF PS: Those who wish to taint me by pretending that I have not addressed the sins of Christendom are again invited to read here on: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-9-sins-of-christendom.html#u9_intro . . . and again, I draw attention to Bernard Lewis' counsel in his now 25 year old epochal essay, The Roots of Muslim Rage:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
kairosfocus
August 1, 2015
August
08
Aug
1
01
2015
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Carpathian:
Religion and politics are not sources of liberty and democracy.
Bland denial of abundantly demonstrated facts that obviously do not fit how you prefer history to have run. Speaks volumes on the sort of deep-seated hostility driven by radical secularism that we are seeing. Onlookers, simply scroll up to see live citations of pivotal thought and acts contributing to the rise of modern liberty and democracy from the Judaeo-Christian tradition. As for the notion that relevant political innovations along the road were not political acts, that is an oxymoron. To understand C's problems, cf the parallel thread: https://uncommondescent.com/religion/carpathian-and-ilk-vs-the-first-amendment-to-the-us-constitution/ KFkairosfocus
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Remember, there is a myth that the Judaeo-Christian heritage had nothing to do with the rise of modern liberty and democracy, it is all reaching back to pagan antecedents and the Christian faith is at enmity with democracy.
Religion and politics are not sources of liberty and democracy. All freedoms are won by those "governed" who remove their consent to be governed. The Magna Carta was forced on the British monarchy and religious freedoms are forced on church leaders. In order to keep their followers, churches yield to the demands of their flock and introduce reform such as gay marriage and women in the clergy. The evidence that any leaders give up power without being forced to, is not seen in history.Carpathian
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Mapou, sometimes, specific documentation from and step by step argument building on original sources is required to correct deeply entrenched secularist myths. Remember, there is a myth that the Judaeo-Christian heritage had nothing to do with the rise of modern liberty and democracy, it is all reaching back to pagan antecedents and the Christian faith is at enmity with democracy. Which is actually where JF intervened. I have acted to back him, as thread owner. For instance, above I have in 94 and 96 cited: Vindiciae 1579, the Dutch DoI 1581 that builds on it, Lex Rex, Locke with Hooker and Aristotle, some very helpful deeply informed commentary, as well as directly relevant scripture that answers to AH's talking points. In other comments I have taken time to cite US founding documents and give relevant explanations. Also, 94 is in effect largely a summary on trends that undergirded the emergence of modern liberty and democracy, bringing out why it was not feasible before C17 - 19, and showing key reasons why it arose where it did, including the impact of the Judaeo-Christan heritage and the reformation. Of course you and others are free to ignore. But, at the cost of continuing to believe and/or enable pernicious error in the teeth of easy access to answers that took years to compile -- and which to my best recall has not been seriously previously discussed at UD. But, given what is now on the table from radical secularists, it is critical. The lessons of sound history were written in blood and tears. Those who brush them aside, reject or ignore such doom themselves to have to learn them again, at much the same price. KFkairosfocus
July 31, 2015
July
07
Jul
31
31
2015
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @94 & 96, Brevity is divine, IMO. There is only so much time in one day. I can't read your overly inflated prose. Sorry. Same goes to BA77, BTW.Mapou
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
JF, It seems it may be helpful to put Ep Philemon on the table: _______________ >> Philemon English Standard Version (ESV) Greeting 1 Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our beloved fellow worker 2 and Apphia our sister [Antislavery Soc, 2nd motto: Am I not a woman and a sister?] and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Philemon's Love and Faith 4 I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, 6 and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.[a] 7 For I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you. [--> setting the in common base and enlightening the heart to address mind and will . . . pivotal issue is neighbour-love.] Paul's Plea for Onesimus 8 Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus,[b] whose father I became in my imprisonment. [--> establishing equality and influence, Paul is spiritual father to Philemon, Apphia and Onesimus, who comes to Collosse with this epistle which is presumably being openly read in the congregation as a second message from the apostle in chains] 11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) [--> word play on the meaning of Onesimus, i/l/o apparently theft of a sum] 12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. -==> theme of love and equality in sonship] 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a bondservant[c] but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. [--> sons of Paul and brothers in the flesh and in the Lord: AM I NOT A MAN AND A BROTHER?] 17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. [--> unlimited endorsement: receive him in partnership as you would receive me. Fatal to the context and concepts of slave-holding.] 18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self. [--> Paul puts his own family inheritance on the line] 20 Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say. 22 At the same time, prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping that through your prayers I will be graciously given to you. Final Greetings 23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers. 25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Footnotes: Philemon 1:6 Or for Christ's service Philemon 1:10 Onesimus means useful (see verse 11) or beneficial (see verse 20) Philemon 1:16 Or slave; twice in this verse (for the contextual rendering of the Greek word doulos, see Preface)>> _____________________ The impact of that on slavery was immense. Now, let us note also:
Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
That is, there is a radical equality in Christ, leading to us all being under the neighbour love obligation. We are made in the image of God, are organically related, are radically equal in the flesh and in the Lord. So also:
1 Cor 7:17 Only let each person lead the life[c] that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a bondservant[d] when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants[e] of men. 24 So, brothers,[f] in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.
As well:
1 Tim 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[b] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
Then also:
Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
These lay out very relevant principles. Next, I will look by way of a clip or two, at how biblical examples of God as liberator starting with the Exodus -- liberation from state-slavery of an alien subject-people -- acting through lower magistrates or emerging popular representatives leads to nationhood and government under God, the crucial step we see in Vindiciae by Ph Duplessis-Mornay. First, Professor Bamberg:
[b]y means of the first covenant, the people form a religious covenant community. By means of the second, the political state arises. This political covenant assures that people will obey the ruler's commands as long as they are just. If the ruler does not fulfill his obligation then the people are absolved from their vows of allegiance. The fact that God includes the people in the parties of the compacts demonstrates that 'the people have a right to make, hold and accomplish their promises and contracts.' The people are not slaves without rights but are responsible to fulfill certain obligations as well as enjoy certain privileges . . . . The concepts of compact, tyranny and resistance are popularly attributed solely to the Enlightenment figures of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. To be sure, this was one means through which these ideas were disseminated, yet, they are actually much older. The language and arguments Adams employs [and this of course includes that collaborative work, the US DOI of 1776] bear striking similarities to the Vindiciae contra tyrannos. . . . [which] does not argue for anarchy. It recommends resistance to tyranny based upon the authority of lower officers of the state [i.e. through their interposition as equally God's agents to do good and protect the community and its members from evildoers, including tyrants by usurpation, corruption or invasion]. As such, it should be considered an argument for a conservative revolution. At the same time, it brought the contract theory into play against the claims of divine right absolutism. In this way it contributed to later contract theory . . . . Any revolt must proceed along orderly lines through the lower magistrates . . . . In America, the elected representatives of the people, town councils, Continental Congress or the lower houses of the colonial legislatures were responsible to oppose the tyrant king and Parliament as well as the loyalist lower magistrates, i.e. Massachusetts Governor Hutchinson. Adams felt that the American Revolution met these qualifications. On the other hand, he had nothing but animosity for the rabble revolution in France which claimed the American Revolution as its model. Adams, appalled by the mob rule in Paris, denounced the tyranny of the majority in that revolution . . . . The social contract theory of civil government [in this context] was an amiable theory to men raised on the covenant theology of New England as Adams had been. The influence of Locke seems evident, but he was welcomed by the New Englanders precisely because he had reformulated the familiar ideas of the Calvinists . . . . Adams, like other American Whigs, derived his theory from the English Civil War tradition which was itself informed by Vindiciae.
Now, Vindiciae, 1579 (one of the most famous of banned books, which patently influences the Dutch DoI 1581), heads: http://www.constitution.org/vct/vind.htm
THE TREATISE: i. Whether Subjects are bound and ought to obey Princes, if they command that which is against the Law of God ...... 65 ii. Whether it be lawful to resist a Prince which doth infringe the Law of God, or ruin the Church. By whom, how, and how far it is lawful .... 87 iii. Whether it be lawful to resist a Prince which doth oppress or ruin a public State, and how far such resistance may be extended. By whom, how, and by what right or law it is permitted .... 117 iv. Whether neighbour Princes or States may be, or are, bound by Law to give succour to the subjects of other Princes, afflicted for the cause of true religion, or oppressed by manifest Tyranny .... 215 . . . . For so much as we must here dispute of the lawful authority of a lawful prince, I am confident that this question will be the less acceptable to tyrants and wicked princes; for it is no marvel if those who receive no law, but what their own will and fancy dictate unto them, be deaf unto the voice of that law which is grounded upon reason. But I persuade myself that good princes will willingly entertain this discourse, insomuch as they sufficiently know that all magistrates, be they of never so high a rank, are but an inanimated and speaking law. Neither though anything be pressed home against the bad, can it fall within any inference against the good kings or princes, as also good and bad princes are in a direct diameter opposite and contrary: therefore, that which shall be urged against tyrants, is so far from detracting anything from kings, as on the contrary, the more tyrants are laid open in their proper colours, the more glorious does the true worth and dignity of kings appear; neither can the vicious imperfections of the one be laid open, but it gives addition of perfections and respect to the honour of the other. But for tyrants let them say and think what they please, that shall be the least of my care; for it is not to them, but against them that I write; for kings I believe that they will readily consent to that which is propounded, for by true proportion of reason they ought as much to hate tyrants and wicked governors, as shepherds hate wolves, physicians, poisoners, true prophets, false doctors; for it must necessarily occur that reason infuses into good kings as much hatred against tyrants, as nature imprints in dogs against wolves, for as the one lives by rapine and spoil, so the other is born or bred to redress and prevent all such outrages . . . We have shewed before that it is God that does appoint kings, who chooses them, who gives the kingdom to them: now we say that the people establish kings, puts the sceptre into their hands, and who with their suffrages, approves the election. God would have it done in this manner, to the end that the kings should acknowledge, that after God they hold their power and sovereignty from the people, and that it might the rather induce them, to apply and address the utmost of their care and thoughts for the profit of the people, without being puffed with any vain imagination, that they were formed of any matter more excellent than other men, for which they were raised so high above others; as if they were to command our flocks of sheep, or herds of cattle. But let them remember and know, that they are of the same mould and condition as others, raised from the earth by the voice and acclamations, now as it were upon the shoulders of the people unto their thrones, that they might afterwards bear on their own shoulders the greatest burdens of the commonwealth. Divers ages before that, the people of Israel demanded a king. God gave and appointed the law of royal government contained in the seventeenth chapter, verse fourteen of Deuteronomy, when, says Moses, "thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me like as all the nations that are about me, thou shalt in any wise set him whom the Lord thy God shall choose from amongst thy brethren, etc." You see here, that the election of the king is attributed to God, the establishment to the people: now when the practice of this law came in use, see in what manner they proceeded . . . . And for David, by the commandment of God, and in a manner more evident than the former, after the rejection of Saul, Samuel anointed for king over Israel, David, chosen by the Lord, which being done, the Spirit of the Lord presently left Saul, and wrought in a special manner in David. But David, notwithstanding, reigns not, but was compelled to save himself in deserts and rocks, oftentimes falling upon the very brim of destruction, and never reigned as king until after the death of Saul: for then by the suffrages of all the people of Judah he was first chosen king of Judah, and seven years after by the consent of all Israel, he was inaugurated king of Israel in Hebron. So, then, he is anointed first by the prophet at the commandment of God, as a token he was chosen. Secondly, by the commandment of the people when he was established king. And that to the end that kings may always remember that it is from God, but by the people, and for the people's sake that they do reign, and that in their glory they say not (as is their custom) they hold their kingdom only of God and their sword, but withal add that it was the people who first girt them with that sword . . . . Now, seeing that the people choose and establish their kings, it follows that the whole body of the people is above the king; for it is a thing most evident, that he who is established by another, is accounted under him who has established him, and he who receives his authority from another, is less than he from whom he derives his power. . . . . Now that which we speak of all the people universally, ought also to be understood, as has been delivered in the second question, of those who in every kingdom or town do lawfully represent the body of the people, and who ordinarily (or at least should be) called the officers of the kingdom, or of the crown, and not of the king; for the officers of the king, it is he who places and displaces them at his pleasure, yea, after his death they have no more power, and are accounted as dead. On the contrary, the officers of the kingdom receive their authority from the people in the general assembly of the states (or, at the least were accustomed so anciently to have done) and cannot be disauthorized but by them, so then the one depends of the king, the other of the kingdom, those of the sovereign officer of the kingdom, who is the king himself, those of the sovereignty itself, that is of the people, of which sovereignty, both the king and all his officers of the kingdom ought to depend, the charge of the one has proper relation to the care of the king's person; that of the other, to look that the commonwealth receive no damage; the first ought to serve and assist the king, as all domestic servants are bound to do to their masters; the other to preserve the rights and privileges of the people, and to carefully hinder the prince, that he neither omit the things that may advantage the state, nor commit anything that may endamage the public . . . .
Thus the Dutch DoI 1581 takes its plain context (and sets precedent for what will follow:
. . . a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression and violence as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince, to obey his commands, whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects (without which he could be no prince), to govern them according to equity, to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock, and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them. And when he does not behave thus, but, on the contrary, oppresses them, seeking opportunities to infringe their ancient customs and privileges . . . then he is no longer a prince, but a tyrant, and the subjects are to consider him in no other view . . . This is the only method left for subjects whose humble petitions and remonstrances could never soften their prince or dissuade him from his tyrannical proceedings; and this is what the law of nature dictates for the defense of liberty, which we ought to transmit to posterity, even at the hazard of our lives. . . . . So, having no hope of reconciliation, and finding no other remedy, we have, agreeable to the law of nature in our own defense, and for maintaining the rights, privileges, and liberties of our countrymen, wives, and children, and latest posterity from being enslaved by the Spaniards, been constrained to renounce allegiance to the King of Spain, and pursue such methods as appear to us most likely to secure our ancient liberties and privileges.
Lex Rex, 1644 by Rutherford builds on such and sets the context for Locke, who very directly influenced the US DoI and Constitution, all against the growing context of democratising forces and spiritual softening already put on the table. Gary Amos summarises helpfully:
[Lex Rex] was a major force in the development of the [1640's Puritan] revolution [in Britain] . . . Although . . . only one of dozens of such tracts asserting the right of resistance to tyranny, it is important for being exhaustive; it was widely known, and it contained the principles of revolution on which all major Protestant parties in England were agreed . . . . insists that civil government is based on the "law of nature," a divine law binding on the conscience, and on the law of God, or the moral law in Scripture. The laws of nature and of Scripture says Rutherford, declare that all men are equal, that they have rights they do not surrender when they enter into the compact of Government, and that government is formed by their consent, organized to exercise its powers as the people see fit. . . . men institute particular governments, while God ordains The proper scope and authority of civil government . . . . [Lex Rex] builds its argument on the compact theory of Government which prevailed among Calvinists from the time of the Vindiciae . . . the key ideas are compact, condition and material breach . . .There must be a series of tyrannous acts before the people have a right to put the king out of office. Also the people cannot act as a mob, they must act through representatives. The representatives must formally declare the king to be a tyrant, publicly naming the wrongs that the king has committed. Only after such a public declaration as been made can the people take up arms . . . to dethrone him . . . . The declaration did in few words and practice what Lex Rex had explained in great detail as a matter of theory. The only difference is that Rutherford called for a state-established church, and idea which even many Presbyterians had rejected by 1776. Small wonder, then, that a number of British observers termed the American revolution, 'the Presbyterian revolt.' . . . . According to Vindiciae, God alone punishes the king for breaking the first compact [nationhood under God]. The people can punish the king for breaking the second [just government under God] . . . likewise Becker overlooked what Calvinist writers like Rutherford had said about the place of the law of nature in revolutionary theory . . .most of Locke's arguments are found, at least in elementary form, in Lex Rex [he duly notes that in responding to Filmer Locke breaks new grounds as well] . . . . Like Rutherford, Locke insists that a king's incompetence is not a sufficient ground for revolution . . . He must commit repeated acts of tyranny, 'a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way . . . [and] make the design visible to the people" . . . When it becomes evident . . . that the king will not turn from his plan, they, through their representatives, may set up a new Government
Lex Rex's subtitle takes the cake for saying it all as it takes on absolute monarchy:
A dispute for The Just Prerogative of King and People: containing The reasons and causes of the most necessary defensive wars of the Kingdom of Scotland, and of their Expedition for the aid and help of their dear brethren of England; in which their innocency is asserted, and a full answer is given to a seditious pamphlet, entitled, "SACRO-SANCTA REGUM MAJESTAS," or The Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings; under the name of J. A., but penned by John Maxwell, the excommunicate Popish Prelate; with a scriptural confutation of the ruinous grounds of W. Barclay, H. Grotius, H. Arnisæus, Ant. de Domi. popish Bishop of Spilato, and of other late anti-magitratical royalists, as the author of Ossorianum, Dr. Ferne, E. Symmons, the Doctors of Aberdeen, etc. In Forty-four Questions. [Caps due to SR]
Of these, summary remarks on Questions VII and IX capture the flavour of the link through Locke into the US DOI and Constitution:
The excellency of kings maketh them not of God's only constitution and designation. — How sovereignty is in the people, how not. — A community doth not surrender their right and liberty to their rulers, so much as their power active to do, and passive to suffer, violence. — God's loosing of the bonds of kings, by the mediation of the people's despising him, proveth against the P. Prelate that the Lord taketh away, and giveth royal majesty mediately, not immediately. — The subordination of people to kings and rulers, both natural and voluntary; the subordination of beasts and creatures to man merely natural. — The place, Gen ix. 5, He that sheddeth man's blood &c. discussed . . . . No tyrannical power is from God. — People cannot alienate the natural power of self-defence. — The power of parliaments. — The Parliament hath more power than the king. — Judges and kings differ. — People may resume their power, not because they are infallible, but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves as one man may do. — That the sanhedrim punished not David, Bathsheba, Joab, is but a fact, not a law. — There is a subordination of creatures natural, government must be natural; and yet this or that form is voluntary.
We could go on and on, but this is enough for the reasonable person in light of the already outlined historical context and trends, to see the matrix from which modern representational constitutional democracy would come, and how the Judaeo-Christian tradition made major contributions. One objection is likely to come up: but this is all about kings! In the C16 - 18 context that is understandable, but in fact the biblical tradition offers a very different model as preferable: God is the true Sovereign, but raises up shepherds for his people, his flock. For instance, Moses is a prophetically called popular representative coming back from exile to lead a movement of remonstrance, and in the face of hard heartedness, liberation and separation of a newly independent nation. Of which he is acknowledged leader and prophetic lawgiver, as well as chief judge. His sons do not automatically succeed, an assistant and general does, being acknowledged as successor. After him come judges and prophets, often as liberators from invasion and oppression. (BTW, this is a context in which it has been suggested that across the major American founders Deuteronomy, effectively Israel's constitution, was the most commonly cited or alluded work. That's just an IIRC, though.) What is astonishing is this, which happens when Israel's leaders come to Samuel begging for a king:
1 Sam 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah 5 and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. 8 According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. 9 Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” Samuel's Warning Against Kings 10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” The Lord Grants Israel's Request 19 But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 21 And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the Lord. 22 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.” . . .
Of course, all of this used to be commonplace, a part of the mental furniture of any reasonably educated person. It is in this context that classical sources could be critically appraised and drawn on, likewise preceding political thinkers, law and history. And that is how the concept of regularly elected legislators and executives became a gateway to restrain the corrupting tendencies of power, and it is that which in turn reflects in three balanced arms of govt. (In the US, latterly, it seems the life tenure of the supreme court has become a gateway for manipulation, especially as impeachment mechanisms seem to be too often ineffective given forces in play. But more than that, the electorate, across time, has been robbed of its heritage and the cutting off of the prophetic tradition based liberating influence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is leading to exactly where one should expect, as it is God who is the proper foundation of the proper balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities and thus of justice.) So, we see a little more about those roots that have been so suppressed, denigrated and demonised in our day. Leaving us open to the march of folly led and orchestrated on the nihilistic credo that might and manipulation make 'right.' Paul was right to warn:
Eph 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
And again . . .
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools . . . . 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
It is time for fresh thinking, but one of the peculiar consequences of clinging to absurdities and errors is that these then become the criteria by which one judges, and so often one will misunderstand and reject genuine truth and warrant because wisdom seems to be error and light darkness. As Jesus warned:
22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
But, will we listen? KFkairosfocus
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
sean
It would be pretty disappointing if we hadn’t improved upon it by now.
We have improved not because of logic or because of more experience but because we were motivated by Christ, we became Christians and the teachings of absolute equality became objective because they were tied in the face of God and no one doubted the wisdom of God since He is Omniscience, that motivated us to be more merciful without second thoughts, to love without borders without second thoughts and so on...that's why its so important to believe that Christ was the Son of God aka that was an authority, because people tend to deny Christ because of personal desires. The source of our improvement is the belief that Christ was risen from the dead. The ancient Greeks weren't dump, they had philosophized why only rich people had the right to vote, their democracy was based on logic. You think that progress means more equality, well that obviously doesn't apply to reality, History has shown that Rome didn't became more Democratic as time passed but instead it embraced the God Cesar figure who had the absolute authority over people and if anyone dared to oppose him he was killed.
Oddly enough, it took many, many centuries for Christians to notice those teachings were there; so clearly something else happened, something other than “the teachings of Christ”.
No. The State of Law was created in the time of Emperor Justinian, Codex Iustinianus was written in the 6th century and since the Great Constantine the laws were slowly become more humanistic. The State of Law couldn't arise before Justinian because the Empire wasn't fully Christianized and the idea that all people are equal seemed strange to the Pagans, we have written testimonies from Pagan authors that mock the idea of equality since it went against their worldview, after the Empire was Christianized the Christian Church had the power to affect the State laws.
Ah, I don’t think any “philosophers” created the idea of democracy; at least not acting in their roles as philosophers.
The power to philosophize created democracy. The philosophers were just humans, part of the society, more educated and more experienced.
Certainly “philosophers” were not involved outside of Greece. Some Native American peoples had democracies at the time that Europeans first encountered them.
even if they created the same exact thing as Athenian Democracy (they didn't) it still required first to philosophize it, because they too had wise men that philosophized but they were called something else. If a Native American built houses and an ancient Greek builts houses we can describe them with different words but the property is the same.
Whoever created the idea of democracy, they certainly were not Christians, so putting Christianity at the root of democracy is false.
No, i said only that MODERN Democracy is based on Christian Teachings about equality, if you went back in Ancient Greece and said to them "hey why you have slaves? Why women aren't allowed to vote? This is not democracy!" They would laugh at you because Democracy didn't had in its roots absolute equality.
I have to ask: as a Christian, you now reject democracy? and you’d prefer a monarchy?
You evangelize the State of Law which was motivated by the Teachings of Christ and was created NOT under Democracy but under the Emperor, that's why i said that Democracy is fictitious! Monarchy doesn't always mean inequality.JimFit
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
AH (also attn Mapou), I see your why the 1500 year delay issue. As our World History tends to be weak, let me sketch in a very rough outline. First, modern constitutional democracy is not the only legitimate form of government, as government has to ft to circumstances. And when you have an existing empire and power elites with centuries long ongoing collapse to deal with it affects things. Indeed, we often forget that Rome was a city-state based republic that collapsed in chaos and was "saved" by the veiled conversion to autocratic empire under Octavian aka Augustus, after yet another wave of civil war triggered by Julius Caesar's assassination. Just as it expanded to its more or less geostrategic and internal communications and governance limits. And do not forget the impact of the loss of 3 legions in Germany AD 9 [a big slice of military capacity], which meant that the frontier line forever after was in the wrong place, Rhine instead of Oder-Niesse or the like. And as a sign of what was to come, Arminius, the German victor had served as a Roman Auxiliary and in effect led the Romans into an ambush between forest and swamp. (Call this Rome's Stalingrad and you will get an idea of impact.) Long militarised fronts facing perpetual threats In the East, the Danube line was likely the best you could get, and the Parthians were going to be an onward running sore all the way to the point where the remaining E Empire fought to mutual exhaustion 628 AD opening the strategic opportunity for Mohammed's successors in the 630's and again later in the 1000's that opened things up for Turks . . . Julius Caesar was assassinated on the eve of his intended departure to subjugate the Parthians. That said, you might find Augustine's City of God a good survey of what it was like to be in late Empire under major barbarian immigration and invasion, then multiplied by waves of Plague leading to disintegration and collapse, with the only surviving regional institution being what would become the Roman Catholic church. With the Muslims coming in through No Africa and Spain into France and raiding by sea everywhere, including Rome itself. Then came "the fury of the Northmen" starting from the infamous attack on the Landisfarne holy island monastic base c 790. Things were so bad with this that after Paris was sacked, the French king simply gave Normandy as a Duchy to some vikings (already settling, much as in Britain and Ireland etc) on condition they defended from further invasion. Massive civilisational collapse in short. In that light, it would have been helpful if you had interacted with the thread above as a basis for commenting, esp. 60: _____________ >>60 kairosfocus July 28, 2015 at 12:52 am SB (attn SS): Recall also that once populations move beyond a small city state, to govern democratically and stably i/l/o the civil peace of justice, you need adequate communications both physical and informational, thus the printing press and a broad base of literacy and elementary education including basic civics. You also need sufficient of an agricultural and trading base and wider economy that things like famine are rare relatively speaking. (Absent that, governance inevitably falls to a governance-leisure class that has relative education, wealth and stability advantages. If you are lucky, that class is relatively open. Where, frankly as far as that goes, a monastic class that is open and relatively merit based allied to a heavy cavalry armoured warrior class — that implies major costs, expenses and a massive investment in training — restrained by a code of protecting the peasantry was a reasonable solution in the teeth of the circumstances after the collapse of the W Roman Empire. Where, the rise of longbowmen, pike men and musketry was a later, democratising force as a soldier is much cheaper than a knight or a cataphract etc. Under such circumstances the societal challenge is to keep chaos, collapse, invasion and mass death to disease at bay and it is unlikely to have any great knowledge base to work from.) How do I know this? Post slavery, across a bit over 100 years, that was the challenge facing the anglophone Caribbean, esp Jamaica. Free villages backed by dissenter churches in the main, schools based in the village church, subsistence farming with cash crops, growing literacy and experience with community organisation laid a base for local self government and independence. And, though there are big problems, the region as a whole has managed not to fall into chaos and despotism. As you rightly highlight, that further demands a critical mass or general consensus on worldview and social agenda, with an emphasis on grounding and guarding the civil peace of justice. Which puts natural moral law and its core principles at the pivot. The practical import of all of this is that democracy (as opposed to mob rule and rule by a narrow elite of first class citizens constituting a ruling class) in large scale societies based on a broad based or universal franchise was not feasible until the widespread existence of printing, paper or the equivalent, a books trade, a literate public of primary level education and the existence of regular newspapers. Also, a military technology that could allow a peasant to become a successful soldier or sailor, providing adequate defence based on a modern army and navy. With, a culture dominated by a worldview that sustains responsible freedom under natural law based civil codes and also a sound work ethic. The first time and place in history where that was met was reformation era Northern Europe, especially the island of Great Britain — and we should recall that after the Black Death pandemic, the 100 yr wars and decades of civil war then the Tudors and King James and co, the breakthrough point was the glorious revolution of 1688, which at last created stability and a theory that guided what would emerge. Then, this spread to North America in the colonies of Britain. So, it is no surprise that modern liberty and democracy were hammered out there and in extensions in Australasia. Where, the second breakthrough was the American Revolution starting with its DoI and its successful Constitution. And, it is no surprise that the Judaeo-Christian tradition was the dominant shaping tradition, as I took time to document here on in context, also in the parallel thread: https://uncommondescent.com/religion/carpathian-and-ilk-vs-the-first-amendment-to-the-us-constitution/ for the case of 1st amdt, US const. As the American experiment succeeded and as Britain and its colonies continued a more gradual emergence, that started a trend that spread. But it should be realised that the main global spread of Democracy is the past 100 – 200 years, and indeed the past several decades of the post colonial then post cold war era . . . de facto World War III, and it has overlapped slow-burn World War IV with the rise again of radical IslamISM. Democratisation in substance — as opposed to mob rule manipulated by political messianism and/or cronyism or even mafia-ism — is a process that is far from finished. I should note that electronic communications starting with telegraph, were vital to the feasibility of a continent-spanning democracy, as pioneered by the US, Canada and Australia. Beyond this zone of the English-speaking peoples, democracy spread by example and rising aspiration of peoples who saw a better way. And, of course, in the aftermath of the collapse and discrediting of major alternatives such as fascism and marxism and the like. But in these cases, there is an ongoing challenge of cultural consensus and in-the-bones, absorbed- with- mother’s- milk intuitive understanding of democratic civil society. In short, democratisation takes generations of cultural transformation, and is easily hampered by political messianism and fundamentally undemocratic and unsound ideologies and worldviews that undermine responsible rational freedom and free enterprise based productivity. Where also, of course the rise of evolutionary materialist scientistic radically secularist ideology and statist political messianism with ruthless nihilistic factions and linked family breakdown in the core lands of the founding of modern constitutional democracy, is a warning flag. For, the core premise of democracy is responsible, rational freedom in a community that understands, promotes and guards the civil peace of justice. When therefore I see attempts to denigrate what drove the rise of modern liberty and democracy in the nation-state, I take it as a very serious sign indeed. I wonder if some of those so busily trying to discredit the Judaeo-Christian heritage would think if they saw someone who could not bring himself to acknowledge that black people or predominantly black communities had ever done anything good or a significant contribution to progress, but instead was forever dwelling on a litany of the sins of black individuals and communities, and always sought to find another source to praise for any progressive contribution. With, continual resort being made to fears of blacks seizing power and imposing abusive domination. I am sure such would immediately and rightly cry racism. As, say, we could see in Apartheid era South Africa. In that light, as a black man and Christian, I find myself compelled to highlight a clear pattern of anti-Christian animosity and even bigotry. Even as Apartheid era South Africa was the last bastion of institutionalised racism. So, the pattern we have been seeing trips serious warning flags. It is time for fresh and more soundly balanced thinking.>> _____________ I trust this gives some context. And, explains my deep pessimism about our civilisation's future. This time, nukes are in play in Parthia's successor. And with Britain more or less completing its geostrategic retreat and the US alienating the partners it needs at the choke-points of sea trade and generally failing to face the geostrategic burden the dominant maritime power must bear to sustain stability in a global world connected by sea trade for the past 500years, the alternatives are Russia and China. Not a happy list. Let's just say that the push by China to facilitate major port stuff in C America and the Caribbean is a sign of things to come. With radical islamisim on the march. KF PS: Mapou, I trust this also speaks to the Protestant-Catholic divide, and I fall on the P side; indeed I come from a country where the historic church of the Black man is the native Baptists founded through George Liele, Moses Baker and co, in material part blacks fleeing to the Caribbean post the US Revolution. Notice, too, the forces, factors, place and time that I highlighted. And the outlook I am putting on the table.kairosfocus
July 30, 2015
July
07
Jul
30
30
2015
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Al Hobbin @92, You need to understand that many of the posters at UD are Catholic and often, when they say Christianity, they mean the Catholic Church. And of course, you are correct to be skeptical of what's being said here. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the introduction of democracy to Europe. In fact, most of the democratic ideas that led to the French Revolution were from atheists who hated the Church. They simply revived old Greek concepts but without the Greek slavery. BTW, I speak as a Christian who is not afraid of the truth. The Catholic Church has been nothing but a disaster to Europe. IMO, they are responsible for almost all of the horrible European wars throughout the last millennium. But it's much worse than this. Before the Holy Roman Empire (i.e., the Church of Rome), land could be neither bought nor sold. It was divided among families for an inheritance. This was a very old practice that began in Sumeria. Mosaic laws also dictated that the land could only be inherited from one generation to the next, thereby solving the homelessness problem once and for all. But the Church of Rome had other ideas in mind. They started the evil practice of "dividing the land for a price". This was the birth of modern capitalism and it contributed to the rise of the land (robber) barons and the enslaving of humanity by a rich minority. The main reason that a rich Catholic country like Mexico can't seem to lift their population out of poverty is that most of the land in Mexico is owned by just a few crooks (who all go to church on Sundays) creating a country of landless peasants in eternal servitude. That's the reason that the poor is forced to embrace the drug trade. So now, when you hear the Pope or some other Catholic public figure urging us to give to the poor and the homeless, you should remind him that his Church is responsible for starting the practice that has led to so much poverty and cruel inhumanity around the world. Not that the Protestant Churches are any better either, seeing that all the Protestant nations of the world have adopted the same evil practice. The Christian Churches should repent from this great evil. Otherwise, the prophet Elijah is coming to restore all things to the way they used to be and put an end to the thievery. And he won't be gentle. Moreover, he is almost at the door. LOL. Saying it like I see it, as always.Mapou
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
I am a latecomer to UD, and I admit that I have not read all of the comments so I apologize if my question has already been addressed. If Christianity is a requirement for modern European style democracy and justice, why did it take over 1500 years to begin to sprout to an elite few (land owners), 1900 years to extend democracy beyond a small fraction of the population to a number still far less than 50% (giving women the vote), and an additional 50 years to extend it to all races? I am not saying that Christianity didn't play a part, I still haven't decided whether it played a positive role or a negative role.Al Hobbin
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
SS, if it weren't in the end so sadly revealing, your latest strawman caricature would be laughable. I showed per state documents the actual historical impacts of the Judaeo-Christian tradition on the American founding. The attempt to pretend that there was none of material effect, I can take it, is now off the table for the reasonable person. I see your further resort to well-poisoning, and failure to realise that there is a reason so much of political debate pivoted on Scripture: people in a Christian culture were seeking to be guided thereby. But surely, by now this text from the greatest sermon of all time has registered, let me give a bit wider of a context:
Matt 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[e] destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.[f]
In short, never underestimate the endarkening power of worldly ambitions that blind us to genuine light. And if you want to genuinely understand the Christian response to slavery and the powers behind it, I suggest you read and ponder the Ep. Philemon with some context. And understand that the antislavery society's motto comes from this: Am, I not a man and a brother. Of course, all of this is distractive and intentionally polarising, also meant somehow to play at Fundy baiting and badmouthing to distract from the now blatant unwillingness to acknowledge the patent truth of a major contribution from the Christian tradition to the rise of modern liberty and democracy. At least, you have done the inadvertent favour of alerting us to the depth of hostility and resentment to the Christian faith and to Christians among the so-called Progressives of our time. So, let me again draw attention to prof Bernard Lewis' comment in his The Roots of Muslim Rage, to show a more reasonable and sound approach . . . though, it is quite obvious that you are far too charged up with hostility to hear what he is so wisely putting on the table about attitude:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
I have no illusions that mere evidence and reason will get you to budge until the pool of bitterness begins to drain, but even so let us just point out that a great part of the impulse behind the reforms came from the sort of heart-softening and enlightenment that came through things like this in Locke as he cited Canon Hooker speaking in light of the neighbour love and equality principles so staunchly taught in the scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 – 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 – 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 – 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian’s Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe].
I only need to remind that this text is from Ch 2 sect 5 of Locke's 2nd treatise on civil govt, which is a pivotal work on the road to modern liberty and democracy. Indeed it is directly and strongly echoed in the US DoI. KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
kairosfocus; I’m not quite sure what point your long post #86 is supposed to be getting at, but if it is intended to demonstrate the necessary role Christianity supposedly played in the development of modern democracy, then you seem to have missed the point. I will happily stipulate that you can find plenty of comments by political thinkers since the 17th century attributing their support of democratic ideals to the Bible. But then, was there any political or social idea in those days that was not “based” on some Biblical verses? Modern persons advocating (theoretically) for slavery, racism, colonialism, polygamy, feudalism, serfdom, objectification of women or children, monarchy, or theocracy would be able to reach back into history and find Famous People who advocated these things based on Biblical authority. Pick almost any political topic X and persons can argue both for and against it based on nothing but Biblical verses and the religious proclamations of Famous Dead People. So the fact that you can do this carries zero weight. We can find folks from Back Then who argued for all manner of Bad Things because “the Bible says to”. In a nutshell: Biblical verses and religious opinions prove almost nothing because they approve of nearly anything. The real problem is to determine why people sided with one Biblical view against the others. Those reasons are not to be found in the Bible (because they’d be part of the biblical views people are choosing between). If the Bible pointed clearly and unambiguously to one outcome, you’d be able to make your case, but it does not. So whatever was the deciding factor, it is Outside of the Bible. Q.E.D. sean s.sean samis
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @87
Evolutionary theory has never made a false prediction. Ok, got it.
So far, no. If you think it has, you should tell us which it was. sean s.sean samis
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
PS: I note that democracies and monarchies are not necessarily incompatible, as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor so clearly demonstrates.kairosfocus
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
SS
Sure it would be; if it happened. So far it’s not.
Evolutionary theory has never made a false prediction. Ok, got it.Silver Asiatic
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
F/N 3: Let me now present first the grand statement structure of the US Const:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I - VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].
Notice, the reference to the blessings of liberty, a covenantal theological term, rather than a legal one? As part of the rationale in brief? Where, language is going to be heavily loaded with context? It reflects the then well known double covenant understanding of nationhood under God and good government also under God as the Champion of Justice who endows rights that good govt instituted by people acting under him exists to protect. As the DoI states. That understanding is specifically Reformation derived and is strongly shown in the following two calls to prayer issued by Congress itself in 1776 and 1777:
May 1776 [over the name of John Hancock, first signer of the US Declaration of Indpependence] : In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day. December 1777: FORASMUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success: It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE; That it may please him to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People and the Labour of the Husbandman, that our Land may yet yield its Increase; To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand, and to prosper the Means of Religion for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom which consisteth “in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”[i.e. Cites Rom 14:9] [Source: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, pp. 286-287 & II, pp. 309 - 310.]
It should be crystal clear just what the blessings of liberty relate to. Going further, as we all know, the Bill of Rights was added on insistence of ordinary people that key rights, freedoms and protections be explicitly (though not necessarily exhaustively) recognised. Their wisdom has been vindicated over 200+ years, but now these words are being pulled hither and yon to fit agendas that could only prosper by distortion. I now clip my point by point on the 1st amdt, in the form of the Congressional resolution:
>>Article the third… [= 1st Amdt US Const] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;>> 1 –> Congress resolves and submits to the people for their ratification. 2 –> There shall be no grand federal landeskirk of the united states, building on the principle of Westphalia 1648 of locality in religion, adjusted to republican circumstances and with better protection of dissenters. 3 –> at this time of course something like nine of the thirteen states had established local state churches, the free exercise clause specifically protected freikirke. 4 –> Thus the letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, is properly to be understood as affirming that Jefferson respected this as setting up a wall of protection for freedom of conscience, worship and religion from interference by the state, especially the state in alliance with a grand landeskirk or some unholy cartel of such at state level. 5 –> In our time, where evolutionary materialist, scientism based secular humanism and its fellow travellers constitute a de facto anti-church cartel, American Dissenting Christians face precisely that kind of interference that this clause was intended to be a bulwark against. >>or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;>> 6 –> Notice, freedom to speak and to publish through media are protected in exactly the context of freedom of faith and its expression. 7 –> Yes, the primary sort of speech and publication being protected is just what Carpathian and others of like ilk would trammel, stigmatise, ghettoise and censor in the name of protecting their ears and eyes from being reminded of Him who they are fain to forget and dismiss. 8 –> The irony of this is itself a rebuke to such a radical secularism. >> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,>> 9 –> This is of course, again in the direct context of religious expression with application to general expression. 10 –> Peaceful assembly implies in homes, in houses of worship, in public spaces, on the streets so long as the assembly be not riotous or a mob seeking to threaten. 11 –> And, again, Carpathian and ilk are found in the lists as enemies of freedom. A sad but not unexpected irony. >> and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances>> 12 –> As in, it was a grievance that the Constitution did not sufficiently and explicitly protect Dissenters from encroachment by potentially hostile establishments that led these to champion a bill of amendments culminating in this one as first in the list. 13 –> So, again, we find the despised evangelicals helping to build liberty. 14 –> And, the power to petition challenges the Laodicean, self-satisfied mentality of power elites that tend to lock out unwelcome voices and views. (As in, Jesus at the church door, knocking and asking to be let in . . . instead of simply forcing his way in while posing on his authority as Lord of the church; as strong a statement of Divine respect for human freedom as one can ever find, even freedom to follow a march of folly.)
The pattern is already clear, but DV more will follow. Notice, these two documents are the charter of modern liberty in a constitutional small-d democracy. KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @81
If the surprise reveals that the theory made a false prediction, then this is not a threat to the theory either.
Sure it would be; if it happened. So far it’s not.
...anything that is preserved is by definition, beneficial, in some way.
Often, but not always. Benefit implies preservation, but preservation does not imply benefit. Basic logic, and especially true with randomly driven processes like evolution. sean s.sean samis
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @80
It is time that modernist revisionism and secularist hostility were called to account.
I agree, but you’re the one engaging in revisionism, and I am not hostile to Christians nor Christianity. I’d reply further to this, but the rest just repeats prior claims I’ve already replied to. I’ll wait for your promised further responses. sean s.sean samis
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
F/N 2: Here is a remark on the 20th anniversary, an oration in Massachusetts . . . and the link gives a facsimilie of the opening page, this is authentic eyewitness lifetime public exposition on the founding and its context that was published at the request of the Militia Officers as being noteworthy on one of those noteworthy round number anniversaries: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=151803 >>A DISCOURSE, DELIVERED AT ASHBURNHAM, JULY 4TH, 1796, AT THE REQUEST OF THE MILITIA OFFICERS IN SAID TOWN; WHO, WITH THE INFANTRY UNDER THEIR COMMAND, AND A TROOP OF CAVALRY, WERE ASSEMBLED UNDER ARMS, TO CELEBRATE THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. BY JOHN CUSHING, A. M. MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL IN ASHBURNHAM. PUBLISHED AT THE DESIRE OF SAID Officers, and others, To whom it is humbly inscribed. . . . . God dealt with no people as with Israel: but in the history of the United States, particularly New-England, there is as great a similarity, perhaps, in the conduct of Providence to that of the Israelites, as is to be found in the history of any people. Truly God has done wonderful things; his works have been great; and it must afford pleasure to search them out, and to speak of them to one another and to our children—It is what we ought to do, to preserve a sense of gratitude, to encourage us to hope in God in future times of trouble, and to excite us to holy obedience. God gave, as a reason for keeping his commandments, his bringing Israel out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of bondage; and surely what he has done for us as a people, is a very powerful reason why we should keep them. We may say, in the words of the Psalmist, “We have heard with our ears, O God; our fathers have told us what works thou didst in their days, in the times of old, how thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; how thou didst afflict the people and cast them out, for they got not the land in possession by their sword, neither did their own arm save them; but thy right hand and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favor unto them.” Our fathers were few in number and feeble, when they first landed in this American wilderness, and would easily have fallen a prey to the savages, if God had not restrained them. But what led them into this then howling wilderness? To enjoy liberty, civil and religious, the greatest boon of a temporal nature. Persecution is a very great evil; yet infinite wisdom brought good out of it; for it proved an occasion of the settling of this part of America. Various attempts for lucrative purposes had been made to establish settlements; but all proved abortive.—It seems as if the Almighty reserved this spot of the globe on purpose as an asylum for our persecuted ancestors; and what is very remarkable, but a little time before their arrival, some pestilential disease swept off the natives to such a degree as to make sufficient room. Such was the spirit of the high church party which ruled in England, that dissenters could have no quiet dwelling in their own land—They must conform to all the ceremonies of the Episcopal church, or submit to fines and imprisonment. Rather than be deprived of the liberty of worshipping God according to the dictates of their conscience, they chose to sacrifice all the delights of their native land, and cross the wide Atlantic, which at that day, for want of experience, was thought to be a very hazardous voyage. And indeed when we think of it, it is a matter of wonder that our ancestors should be so adventurous. The march of Israel out of Egypt, and thro’ the wilderness, was ever esteemed a wonderful thing: but they had Moses and Aaron to lead them—they had the cloud to direct their course, and bread from Heaven in plenty. Our Fathers had no miracles wrought for them, but they experienced many mercies—in so good a cause as they embarked in, they trusted Providence, and God preserved and fed them. They suffered many hardships, for want of the knowledge of cultivating a wilderness. Had they understood as well how to turn it into a fruitful field, as their descendants at this day, there would not have been left on record such dreary accounts of the barrenness and hardships of a wilderness. But worldly interest was not what was uppermost with them; religion was the principal thing they had in view. They requested of their king, James I, leave to transplant themselves into America, where they might enjoy liberty of conscience unmolested, that they might also bring the natives to embrace Christianity, and enlarge his dominions. They obtained their request. Grants of land of such and such extent were made to them. They had a charter which they really thought secured to them those rights, for the sake of which they left their native land. In the arbitrary reign of king James II, it was, without sufficient reasons, taken from them:—although it must be confessed that they did things unjustifiable; which were one principal reason of the first charters being vacated, viz, persecuting those who dissented from them in religion. It ill became those who fled from persecution, to become persecutors. But this may be said in extenuation of their conduct; the rights of men and of Christians at that day were not well understood. They believed that they maintained the pure doctrines and discipline of the gospel; and that it was their duty to support them at all events. Toleration and the rights of private judgment for all, were reserved for their descendants. They meant well, but good intentions will not justify wrong actions. They show that they were but men, imperfect men. I take no pleasure in making our ancestors appear to disadvantage. I venerate their memories; for they laid the foundation of this American empire, by the early care and pains they took to diffuse knowledge, by founding a university, and requiring every town to settle a learned minister, and to maintain schools for the diffusion of knowledge among every class of people. They could not obtain the restoration of their first charter: but with much difficulty and expense they obtained a second, which on some accounts was preferable to the first. Under it they flourished, and thought themselves safe; for it was said the plighted faith of things might be depended upon; but this was found to be a mistake. Our fathers were at the expense of transporting themselves, purchasing the soil of the natives; (for they did not consider the Pope’s grant of the land of Heathens to the king of England, and then his to them, as giving a just title.) They were at the expense of defending themselves against the natives; and they thought it hard [i] to be obliged to help bear the expenses of the mother country. They were willing to bear true allegiance to the king of Great Britain, and they submitted to the Navigation Act in the year 1664, [ii] though with reluctance. They looked upon the king as their king and head of civil authority, who ruled here by his governor; but when attempts were made by the Parliament to lay an internal tax, the whole continent was alarmed; and so mighty was the opposition, that the Stamp Act, which was the first experiment, was repealed as inexpedient; at the same time they declared that they had a right to make laws binding upon the colonies in all cases whatever. This declaration contains the essence of despotism. If they had the right, they would use it, when they saw best, and nothing but opposing arms to arms could prevent it. This right which the Parliament claimed, they exercised in a few years by laying duties upon a number of articles for raising a revenue. This alarmed the Colonies again, and such opposition was made that at length the duty was taken off of all articles but tea. In consequence of a non-importation agreement, and procuring teas from other nations besides the British, the East India Company, who used to supply America with nearly all that were consumed here, were embarrassed by having vast quantities on hand for which they had not a market. They applied to Parliament for relief. The Parliament passed an act, taking off the duty that was paid in the colonies, and empowered the company to ship their teas directly to America; appointed commissioners or factors in each Colony to sell it for them. This was monopolizing an important article of commerce, and there was no knowing where it would end. Upon the same principle they might have sent other articles and every article to the ruin of our merchants. As it might be expected, all the Colonies were alarmed, and came to a determination that they Teas should not be landed. In some of the Colonies the consignees were prevailed upon to return it—what was sent to Boston you know was all emptied into the sea. This Tea Act laid the foundation for the war, which was the occasion of our independence. The British government were highly enraged; they viewed this as rebellion;—they soon passed an act to shut up the port of Boston till compensation should be made for the loss. By this cruel act the innocent suffered with the guilty—hundreds were thrown out of employment, and were dependent on their fellow citizens for subsistence. They were well supplied—contributions from all parts, and from all the Colonies were made, and sent, to encourage them to endure their sufferings which were considered as in a common cause. The British did not stop here—they passed an act which in effect destroyed all our charter rights, and would have reduced us to as abject a state as Ireland was then in; for no town meeting, except the annual march meeting, could be held but by applying to the governor for leave, and every article to be acted upon, was to be specified. This was considered, and justly, as an intolerable grievance. By another, passed about the same time, it was ordained, that any person indicted for murder or any other capital crime committed in aiding the magistrates in executing the laws, might be sent by the Governor either to any other Colony or to Great Britain for his trial; or rather, as was justly observed upon it, to be acquitted. So that hundreds of our people been murdered by the British troops, the chance of obtaining justice was small indeed. The Judges were made wholly independent of the people, as they were to receive their salaries from the king out of the revenue raised here. These acts irritated the people beyond measure. This Commonwealth, then Province, seemed to be aimed at alone, by the last mentioned act. The king and Parliament viewed them as the ringleaders of sedition. The snare was artfully laid—as complete a plan of despotism was contrived as can be conceived; and several regiments of regular troops were sent over to protect the governor and the king’s friends, and to enforce the acts of Parliament. But they found a set of men to deal with that would not tamely submit to the acts of a venal Parliament. A love of liberty had descended from Father to Son, and an hereditary aversion to aristocracy prevailed. Here the greater part were freeholders, had property of their own, which they chose to have the disposal of themselves. Had the king and Parliament recommended to the colonies to raise certain sums in proportion to their wealth, and left them to have taken their own way, they would at once have done it, and cheerfully have contributed towards the expense the nation had been at in conquering Canada, &c. But they thought if strangers had the liberty to open their purses they would be too free with them. They chose to give and grant in their own way. From the time the tea was destroyed, matters became serious. It was greatly feared that the controversy would end in bloodshed and war. It was judged best to make all the preparation in their power against what might be. A congress in 1774 advised to break off all commercial intercourse with Great Britain; hoping that would bring them to terms. People readily complied, and great sacrifices were made—The congress petitioned, but in vain. Britain hearing of our warlike preparations, which were only on the defensive, gave orders to their commander in chief to destroy all the military stores he could. On the 19th of April, 1775, he attempted to execute his orders. Then did he “cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.” A dreadful day it was, when we heard the sound of the trumpet and the alarm of war. We were pained at the very heart. The thoughts of fighting against the mother country, which we had so long venerated, caused such a struggle in the minds of many, that they did not know what to do; but the great body of the people were determined to stand upon their defense to the last extremity. Although the blows were at first all directed at Massachusetts, all the Colonies made a common cause of it, and came to our help. Yet independence of Britain was not aimed at, but by a few. The Congress, even after blood was shed, were determined once more to see what effect petitioning would have. They petitioned for “peace, liberty and safety”—but a deaf ear was turned to the petition; though conceived in terms of loyalty and respect. This Colony was not alone in her complaints; the others had just reason to be dissatisfied; but the treatment that Massachusetts met with from the British, was along sufficient to alarm the whole. The union among them was surprising, and an evidence of an overruling Providence. It appeared then to the most discerning that the time was come to cast off allegiance and dependence upon the mother country; and it appears now by the event, that it was the design of Providence that we should no longer be subject to Great Britain—Independence was declared. Congress in their declaration say, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new governments, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall appear most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate, that governments long established should not to be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, that to right themselves by abolishing forms, to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their security.” &c. And after enumerating the many grievances which led to the war and to the declaration of Independence, they conclude thus; “We therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united Colonies are, and of a right to be, Free and Independent States: that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connections between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be totally dissolved.” &c. Thus was a nation born in a day. We have tried the experiment of a republican government, now about 20 years, and are satisfied—there is no hankering after the leeks and onions of Egypt, i.e. after returning to our dependence upon Great Britain. We have the vanity to think and believe, that we can manage our own concerns, better than people can, who are 3000 miles distant from us. We think it every way better to have Governors of our own choosing, and laws of our own making, than to have Governors and laws sent from England. And we have prospered so well under republicanism, that other nations are following the example, and have cast off monarchical governments, and are proceeding upon the same plan. God prosper them, and in his time give all the nations of the earth liberty and good government! The revolution in America, in a political view, will prove to be the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, which will fill the whole earth. These States are convinced of this truth, which Congress said is self evident, that all men are created equal. Is it not strange that nations have not discovered the same truth? How simple is the idea when known! Will not the nations of the earth when they come to see it, be amazed at their former ignorance, and wonder that they so long passively bore the yoke of slavery? With a great sum we bought our liberty—Independence has cost much blood and immense treasure. But I hear none murmuring, and wishing they had never opposed Great Britain. But when we take a retrospect of our situation at the commencement of the war, we are ready to shudder at the dangers which are passed. The interposition of Providence in our favor was wonderful. The spirit of political enthusiasm, that spread over the continent, seemed at first to supply the place of everything. The people were lead to believe that there was a sufficiency of powder even to act offensively, but the case was quite the reverse. But by good providence, warlike stores of every kind were taken from the enemy, which with what were manufactured among ourselves, proved fully adequate to our wants. The time will not admit of much more enlargement; but I cannot but remind you of the kind care and goodness of God in preparing and raising up a General to lead our armies “who united all hearts,” and who was as much beloved, and as readily obeyed, as any one that ever commanded an army. He spared no pains—he shunned no dangers when his country called him—he was thorough proof against bribery and corruption—he served through the war without wages, and God preserved his life and health through the whole. Where is there to be found a parallel to General Washington? He is truly a wonderful man. His name alone amount foreign nations gives dignity to the United States. May God raise up successors who shall do as worthily! What trying scenes had he to pass through with his armies! At what a low ebb at times were our affairs! You cannot have forgotten, you who were upon the stage, and a number of you are knowing by experience. But he, who began a good work, carried it on, until it was completed in the establishment of independence, and government upon the true principles of liberty. And what people before ever had such an opportunity, deliberately to form and establish their constitutions of government? It was a new thing under the sun. But the example has since been followed, by the French first, then the Poles, and lately the Dutch. But the constitution of Poland has been destroyed by that female tyrant the Empress of Russia. May God speedily restore it again. From the sketches I have given it is evident that we have much to remember with gratitude, and to acknowledge that god’s works towards us have been wonderful, and they encourage us to set our hope in him. And we should tell them to our children, and give it in charge to them to tell their children; for independence, with the blessings accompanying it, is never to be forgotten; one great good of it is, freedom from European wars; while we were in subjection to Britain, all her enemies were of course our enemies. God’s goodness in making us a free people ought to unite our hearts to fear before him, all the days of our life. He has exalted us, and given us a rank among the nations. If we would expect he continuance of our liberty and independence, we must keep his commands, for it is righteousness that exalteth a nation. Wars will continue as long as the lusts of the men war in their souls.—War is now raging among the nations; but we are happily at a great distance from it. May God preserve us in peace! But we must rejoice, with trembling, and not put off the harness. The lusts of men make it necessary to learn the arts of war; to be in readiness for it, is the best way to prevent it. May you, gentlemen officers, and citizen soldiers, acquire honor to yourselves by your officer and soldier like conduct! May you make progress in obtaining the knowledge of all the maneuvers that are necessary! We hope in God that you will never be called to jeopardize your lives in the high places of the field; but should you be, may you willingly offer yourselves, and be of good courage, and play the man for your people and for the cities of your God! But if you always live in peace, forget not that you have spiritual enemies to combat. Then fight the good fight of faith; have on the whole armor of God, that you may conquer all your spiritual adversaries. Remember there is a war in which there is no discharge, I mean the war of death. If you become good soldiers of Jesus Christ, he will give you the victory, and enable you to sing that triumphant song, Oh Death, where is thy Sting; O Grave, where is thy Victory? This is addressed to everyone, as we all have to accomplish this warfare. At death the righteous enter into rest and peace, and enjoy the glorious liberties of the sons of God in perfection. May we all finally be thus free and happy, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the redeemed in Heaven, where there is no sin, no wars nor fightings, no sorrow nor death. “Then let each one march boldly on, press forward to the heavenly gate: there peace and joy eternal reign, and glittering robes for conquerors wait.” Finis. >> KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
F/N: A quickie, as I just had to make a response a few days back on why I included a citation of 2nd para US DoI in a discussion draft for a charter of good government . . . oops mixed up clip, now corrected:
>>We hold these truths to be self-evident,>> 1 –> cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15, 13:1 – 10 . . . one we understand what is at stake in our being morally governed beings of equal nature and worth, there is no excuse of ignorance regarding core rights, the attempt to deny such lands instantly in patent absurdity >>that all men are created equal,>> 2 –> The pivot of all else, and on this cf Locke in his 2nd treatise on civil govt ch 2, citing ‘the judicious [Anglican canon Richard] Hooker [in his Ecclesiastical Polity, which onward uses Moshe, Jesus and Paul on the Golden Rule and Aristotle, with echoes of Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis and Blackstone in his Commentaries]”:
. . . 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 . . . 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 themward 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 . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
3 –> Blackstone on the laws of nature and of nature’s God referenced in the 1st paragraph [of the US DoI] is also well worth the citing:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 – 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 – 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 – 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian’s Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe].
4 –> This then leads into a definition of rights and the state’s purpose as guarding the civil peace of justice through properly balancing rights, freedoms and responsibilities or duties [which brings out how moral government is the key balance to the tendency of democracy to abusive mob rule, the notion that the might of the — typically manipulated and angry — crowd makes ‘right.’] >> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.>> 5 –> The Creator grounds the right and rights. 6 –> This reflects that absent resort to dismissing the testimony of our interior life that we are under the government of a law of ought (and thus implying grand delusion so fatally undermining mind and responsible freedom), we face the binding nature of ought especially through the premise that rights imply correlative duties of respect and care. 7 –> This then leads to the Humean Guillotine and the is-ought gap, thence the only sound answer, there is a world-foundational IS that inherently and adequately grounds OUGHT. 8 –> For such, there is precisely one serious candidate, after centuries of disputes and debates: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, the root of reality who is worthy of ultimate respect and loyalty, then of service by doing the good in accord with our evident nature. 9 –> And yes, I know there is a whole world of serious philosophy and linked theology behind that, starting with the modern modal ontological argument and moral arguments multiplied by the argument from transformative experience of encounter with God. 10 –> That is not our main concern, the national vision that we are a God-fearing society captures the essence. 11 –> From this we ground a deeper understanding of Law rooted in our nature as responsibly and rationally free morally governed creatures charged with the stewardship of Creation and the principle of neighbour love. Down that road lies a world of thought tied to the Categorical Imperative and the sustainability principle insofar as that is valid. And all of that is relevant too. >> –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,>> 13 –> Govt is established through human collective community action, ideally and by force of ought towards justice, which requires guarding and defence, hence the issue of the sword of justice legitimately used in defence of the civil peace of justice. 14 –> And, I insist on the importance of that understanding of the term, civil peace. >> deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,>> 15 –> Thus, democracy enters, in the context of justice, rights, the right, our created equality and endowments of a common value and dignity that must be respected down to the least individual, and guarded with the sword of justice. 16 –> And of course, how that consent is expressed is a pivotal issue of good government and governance. >> –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,>> 17 –> The problem of finite, fallible, morally struggling and corruptible, to often foolish or incompetent or abusive people, including in government and its offices of great trust and power. 18 –> In reply, the people who give consent and legitimate government towards justice, have a collective right to reform and change government >> laying its foundation on such principles>> 19 –> As already given in outline with deep allusions, and this then becomes a classic historically pivotal statement of sound principles in a powerful nutshell well worth learning, memorising and pondering. >> and organizing its powers in such form,>> 20 –> Reformation towards good government >> as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.>> 21 –> The people must be properly and justly educated, trained, habituated, experienced through civil society, supported by transparency and accountability and a free, strong, sound and fair press 22 –> And yes, modern democracy is not feasible absent literacy on a widespread basis and absent means of publication and dissemination of information >> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.>> 23 –> This is serious business, not to be taken up on a whim or on an ill informed basis, especially when radical reform is the issue >> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,>> 24 –> Agendas always have more and more built in, often hidden, the issue is where the direction and trend points, especially as morally evaluated in light of the given principles. >> it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . .>> 25 –> The right of in the end revolution to answer to stubborn destructive power agendas and their champions. 26 –> here, we see that the general election is an institutionalised solemn assembly and audit of government on a regular basis, with peaceful means of reformation and if necessary revolution. 27 –> Hence, BTW the references as cited above to referendum to change constitutions.
Food for initial thought. KFkairosfocus
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
SS @ 79
If all the surprise does is reveal that the researchers did not have accurate expectations of what the theory implies, then the surprise is not a threat to the theory.
If the surprise reveals that the theory made a false prediction, then this is not a threat to the theory either. Evolutionists have already predicted that evolutionary theory will not explain what is observed, so there's no threat at all. Evolution remains 100% correct. It's the strongest scientific theory ever known to mankind. Yes, I've got it.
A fundamental assertion of evolution is that beneficial traits will be preserved.
And anything that is preserved is by definition, beneficial, in some way. Evolution wins again.Silver Asiatic
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
SS, I think you have some history to address (including not a few state documents --start with the US DoI 1776 in context as that is the charter of modern liberty and democracy -- and key writings of the thinkers whose thought went into the state documents), and the deeper question of the roots of Justice as a moral premise of good government and the rise of modern liberty and democracy. It is time that modernist revisionism and secularist hostility were called to account. Where the persistent pattern of refusal to acknowledge the individual and cumulative force of major contributions multiplied by trying to point every which way else and enabling or participating in well poisoning bad mouthing litanies, speaks sad volumes. And, DV there is plenty of time, so we can keep on going day by day as I find time . . . and yes I fully intend some step by step point by point comments when I find a bit of time. And citations. KF PS: The question on the evolutionary materialist model of origins is to provide evidence per here and now observation, of the capability, first of blind chem and physics in that warm pond or whaterver to form the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information required for a living cell, and then to form the FSCO/I for body plans. This simply has not been observed, hopeful speculations and overly optimistic headlines notwithstanding. In short, the framework fails the vera causa, adequate actually observed cause test. Instead, what has happened is an ideologically driven lockout that then reasons in a materialist circle of speculations and passes out promissory notes as a substitute for actually showing capability to account here and now for required blind chance and necessity to cause FSCO/I. On trillions of cases in point, the consistently observed adequate cause for FSCO/I is design. The design inference on FSCO/I as sigh is then backed up by the needle in haystack challenge. So, the reasonable person not in thralldom to imposed a priori materialist ideology will conclude that the world of life strongly points to design as cause. Likewise, a similar assessment of the fine tuning of the cosmos relevant to hosting C-Chemistry aqueous medium, FSCO/I rich, cell based life also strongly points to intelligently and purposefully directed configuration as best empirically warranted explanation, i.e. design. If you disagree, all you need to do is show how the vera causa test was passed by whom, and with what prizes awarded. I predict, you cannot pass that test. Finally, the very text you will type to comment further will further add to the trillions of cases showing how FSCO/I comes about by design. So, failing this test is organically connected to the other failed tests.kairosfocus
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @76 What you and other creationists ignore is that “surprise” does not equal “contradiction”. Surprises don’t have consequences for a theory unless the unexpected information contradicts a requirement of the theory. If all the surprise does is reveal that the researchers did not have accurate expectations of what the theory implies, then the surprise is not a threat to the theory. Does the convergence of genome across species undercut evolution? No. A fundamental assertion of evolution is that beneficial traits will be preserved. Your complaints are a classic example of the elastic quality of creationist anti-science. Every surprise, every unknown, every question is interpreted as proof that evolution is impossible. You have an unlimited supply of complaints to kvetch about. sean s.sean samis
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
JimFit @75
As a Greek i can assure you that democracy in ancient Greece was really different,...
It would be pretty disappointing if we hadn’t improved upon it by now.
Today we have what i call Christian Democracy, it is based solely on the teachings of Christ about equality.
Oddly enough, it took many, many centuries for Christians to notice those teachings were there; so clearly something else happened, something other than “the teachings of Christ”.
The philosophers that created the idea of Democracy...
Ah, I don’t think any “philosophers” created the idea of democracy; at least not acting in their roles as philosophers. Certainly “philosophers” were not involved outside of Greece. Some Native American peoples had democracies at the time that Europeans first encountered them. Whoever created the idea of democracy, they certainly were not Christians, so putting Christianity at the root of democracy is false.
If you think about it nations had achieved more under an Emperor rather under Democracy, personally i think that Democracy is the opium of the people.
I have to ask: as a Christian, you now reject democracy? and you’d prefer a monarchy? sean s.sean samis
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @74
My point has been and remains, that there are material even critical contributions made by the Judaeo-Christian tradition and adherents (often, open Bibles in hand) to the rise of modern liberty and democracy; ...
On that point we do not disagree, but any claim that Christianity has a special role in the modern development of democracy is false.
When there is a refusal to acknowledge such, multiplied by a litany of the real or imagined sins of Christendom,...
I have acknowledged that Christians have made contributions. I just point out that these Christians were borrowing from non-Christian sources, something you don’t deny. With all due respect to Bernard Lewis, nothing he writes confirms any special status or respect due to Christians or Christianity. Christians did some things better, they did some things worse. If the sins of Christians are the sins of humans, then Christianity cannot be better because it is ordinary. If it’s ordinary, then it’s ordinary. Clearly I’ve made you angry, but you don’t point to any specific statement and say “this is factually wrong because...” I am doing things that annoy you but you’ve given me nothing to change except to bend my knee to your command. That I will not do. sean s.sean samis
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
SS
That’s one of the thrills of doing science: you get surprised every now and then. Creationists just don’t get that.
I think creationists get it quite well. It's evident here how you first ignored and now later covered up the problem as if surprises in observations that are supposed to be explained by a theory don't have any consequences for the theory itself. That's classic example of the elastic quality of so-called evolutionary theory. The theory can adjust itself to any possible observation it encounters. There is an unlimited supply of band-aids and excuses to patch things up after the fact.Silver Asiatic
July 29, 2015
July
07
Jul
29
29
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
sean
The rise of liberty and democracy comes out of a deliberate effort to borrow heavily from Pre-Christian political practices; especially Republican Rome and the Grecian democracies. These did not grow from Christian doctrines or theology but from Pagan cultural practices.
As a Greek i can assure you that democracy in ancient Greece was really different, only the people with fields had the right to vote and to have an opinion in public. Today we have what i call Christian Democracy, it is based solely on the teachings of Christ about equality. There was no such thing as equality in ancient Greece. The philosophers that created the idea of Democracy were not traditional pagans, they were close to a Monotheistic God and were very close to Christian Theology that's why the Greek Church has announced them pre-Christian prophets. The State of Law (Public Schools, Public Health System, Public Funds, Public Buildings, abolish of slavery and woman rights) was created because of Christian Theology when the Church united with the State and the Roman law had to be rewritten to fit the Christian doctrines about equality. If you think about it nations had achieved more under an Emperor rather under Democracy, personally i think that Democracy is the opium of the people.JimFit
July 28, 2015
July
07
Jul
28
28
2015
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
SS, why did you try the parody trick to play at turnabout atmosphere clouding and poisoning strawman tactic accusation? For years in and around UD and elsewhere [e.g. cf. here on], I have repeatedly pointed to the sins of Christendom and the like, in the context that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed. That is why among other things, I often speak in terms of things like repentance and reformation, including that the general election is a solemn assembly, audit and peaceful means of reformation or even revolution in extreme cases and that political messianism is a form of destructive idolatry. My point has been and remains, that there are material even critical contributions made by the Judaeo-Christian tradition and adherents (often, open Bibles in hand) to the rise of modern liberty and democracy; which I have taken pains to document from key sources including state papers, e.g here and recently I noted at 60 above on broader patterns such as the rise of literacy, printing and the longbow, the pike and the musket. When there is a refusal to acknowledge such, multiplied by a litany of the real or imagined sins of Christendom, in a wider context of attempts to silence, censor, stigmatise, ghettoise and increasingly crush Christians, my bigotry meter pegs; just as it does when I see that someone cannot find it in himself to acknowledge any good or achievements by blacks or Jews etc while he is forever bad-mouthing such. For patent cause. And those who enable what is now plainly an agenda of abuses, falsehoods, distortions and usurpations had better begin to realise the fire they are playing with. KF PS: By way of a telling contrast, I highlight the attitude of Bernard Lewis, a great scholar who happens to be Jewish, in his epochal essay, The Roots of Muslim Rage:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
kairosfocus
July 28, 2015
July
07
Jul
28
28
2015
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply