Some Christians I know or read about claim to be concerned about the long-term health of society and the future welfare of generations yet unborn, as well as the current one, and yet all too many of the senior figures in the Church of England, say, make asses of themselves by unthinking repetition of Big Government thinking. Case in point being the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.
It is, therefore, a pleasant break from the norm to read this, from Dr Williams’ predecessor, George Carey:
“The sheer scale of our public debt – which hit £1tn yesterday – is the greatest moral scandal facing Britain today. If we can’t get the deficit under control and begin paying back this debt, we will be mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.”
(H/T, Suboptimal Planet: a new blog that I thoroughly recommend).
On the subject of the UK’s debt problems, Martin Durkin, the documentary maker, put together a programme for Channel 4 a while ago which is well worth viewing, with comments from the likes of Allister Heath, Mark Littlewood, Kevin Dowd, James Bartholomew, Nigel Lawson, Geoffrey Howe and, for some light relief, Brendan Barber of the TUC (Trades Union Congress).
There are those Christians who see the State’s role as guaranteeing the “general welfare” of the people, but many more (at least in America) who decidedly do not. As the U.S. government begins to stick it’s nose into theological issues more frequently, the latter group will surely grow.
I have wondered whether it is a requirement for an Archbishop of Canterbury to be as breathtakingly stupid as Rowan Williams, or just a happy accident. Perhaps this is slight evidence pointing to the second possibility.
It does say something in the Bible about neither a borrower nor a lender being, but since when has what the Bible actually saysbeen an issue for high clergy?
Umm, sorry wh00ps, but that line is from Shakespeare (Hamlet, to be precise), not the Bible. (It immediately precedes “To thine own self be true.”) Which doesn’t, of course, detract from your actual point.
Christians, like myself, could quite easily change to a libertarian position on a lot of issues if libertarians learnt some arguments that would appeal to them.
1 Samuel 8 gives a general warning concerning the overbearing nature of government
1 Timothy 5:11-13 gives warnings about the negative consequences that can come from an over generous welfare system
2 Thessalonians 3:10 states that those not willing to work should not eat (i.e. receive support)
In Ruth 2 we have an example of private charity which encourages work (Baoz makes Ruth work for the food)
There is no call for civil punishment against those who refuse to give to the poor – God will punish those who aren’t generous; government has no right to do so.
There are lots of areas Christians won’t be libertarian, and the arguments which will pursuad Christians but won’t be accepted by libertarians (i.e. the use of the Bible) – but if libertarians were eager to have more people agreeing with parts of their message, then it would be worth getting familar with these arguments. I also think it would do Christians a lot of good – especially if we realised that if we really wanted to help the poor, we’d better do it ourselves, instead of making the government force others to do it for us.
Umm, sorry wh00ps, but that line is from Shakespeare (Hamlet, to be precise), not the Bible. (It immediately precedes “To thine own self be true.”)
It (along with “For the apparel oft makes the man” is also uttered by that Polonius dude, who is not actually the brightest of all sparks. Which proves nothing, other than that Shakespeare wrote with levels and levels (and levels) of meaning.
Jamess, you make a very interesting point: one should tailor one’s argument to one’s audience. I shall make an effort to look up those citations you provided. If someone has written anything more extensive on biblical support for libertarian ideas I’d be interested in seeing it.
I don’t really see this as a profound insight, it is more like a statement of the bleeding obvious. At the same time as he is saying this, his mates at the CofE are opposing the capping of benefits at 26k which seems to me to be reasonable. I would accept that the Church sees a part of its job to be sticking up for the poor, but they seem to have overlooked working families that take home less than 26k who are actually having half of their hard earned income creamed off by the government to pay for said benefits.
Carey has spoken well on a number of issues. He’s made more of an impact on me as an ex-archbishop than he did as a bishop, though that might just be that I wasn’t paying proper attention.
Jamess, I put 1 Samuel 8 vs 10-20 as a Samizdata quote of the day a while ago, to a mixed response.
Basically, my view of Christianity and Libertarianism is that, although trying to extract a precise political message from the Bible is arrogant and foolish, nonetheless “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” does get you an awful lot of the way to a broad brush libertarianism. I don’t like to be forced to do things. So I won’t force others.
Unsmite me, O Jonathan, I prithee. (Continuing the theme of not being sure whether I’m talking like the King James Bible or Shakespeare or both.)
Laird: The article on Wealth, Property, Poverty here: http://davidpfield.com/Ethics/Ethics.htm first made me rethink my soft socialism, and the various links I found from the articles within it introduced me to free market principles (and was also the means of finding this blog). It doesn’t set out the relationship between libertarianism and Christianity, which would be an interesting read.
For me the absolute authority of Christ in Matthew 28:18 implies that Government can only claim authority in a certain area if they can demonstrate that Christ has given it to them. The Bible says that the government has authority to punish evildoers (Romans 13:1-4) so it has the right to have a judicial system, but not much more (and within the Bible there is a distinction between sin and crime, so not everything that Christians define as wrong can be punished by the state). I can’t, for instance, find justification for government to take taxes to pay for welfare or for it to punish drug use.
The upshot is that I can find philosophical justification to support a very limited form of government, but not one that extends the government to its current monstrous levels.
Basic assumptions like private property can be deduced by laws against theft in the ten commandments or, classically, in Acts 5:4, and, as Natalie pointed out above, the golden rule works in libertarians favour.
More generally, the doctrine of original sin should make every Christian very nervous of power, meaning that a small state should be prefered.
“Politics According to the Bible” by Grudem Wayne gives some libertarian positions on quite a few issues (and some very non-libertarian views on others). It does, for instance, argue for a libertarian position on the right to bear arms.
Most of the times when Christians have a softly socialist mindset it’s because they haven’t thought through the issues properly, and a few well aimed questions helping them to realise that all government giving comes from government taking, and all government taking comes from force and then challenging the Christian to give justifications for when they think government can take taxes and when they can’t should cause them to stop long enough to consider a more libertarian position.
The very antithesis of collectivist thinking can be found in The Parable of the lost sheep:
Luke 15: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?
In conclusion, the individual matters.
Natalie “”do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is the very antithesis of libertarianism, libertarianism is about not doing unto others who do not want to be done to.
It is also useless as moral code to live by as it can so quickly be reduced to absurdity and sets a standard no one will ever be able to live up to so can only lead to guilt, remorse and frustration.
eg I would like my work colleagues to give me 20% of their wages, does that mean I have to give them 20% of my wages.
A superior moral code and one that genuinely fits with libertarian ideas is the pre-christian “don’t do to others what you would not like done to yourself” this sets a standard that anyone with a sense of personal honour can live up to.
The bible seems to be a book about a cruel and petty cosmic dictator who wishes to be worshipped and wants to control all mankind, Christianity was one of the earliest forms of thought control and totalitarian rule. It has no place in libertarianism.
Also the whole “turn the other cheek” idea does not seem to fit with libertarian ideas it glorifies human suffering as an end in itself and at the same time is a license to abuse anyone less powerful than oneself.
The Palestinian redeemer complex has no place in moral or libertarian philosophy.
The pagans were the original libertarians.
Aside from George Brown’s comment which pretty much sum up my views, the thing I don’t like about Christianity is the forgiveness thing. You can be a bad person then accept “teh baby jezus” and all will be well and forgiven. Just doesn’t sit well with me.
Also how much do those bishops suck, Last time I checked, in the UK 26,000 pounds is the salary for a research engineer with a PHD in the aerospace sector. No one wants to see people starve but how crazy do you have to be to think that people who do nothing should get a higher salary that the people the government “claim” are vital for the economy?
George Brown, you ask,
“eg I would like my work colleagues to give me 20% of their wages, does that mean I have to give them 20% of my wages.”
Of course not. Nor, if you happen to like herrings for breakfast do you have to give all your colleagues herrings. That sort of objection to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” isn’t bad as a quip, but only represents a serious objection if one insists on taking a very literalist view.
I wrote a blog post in 2006 entitled “You’d have them use the brains God gave them” in which I discussed all this at length and said, “The rest of the issue can also be washed away by turning on the Great Hot Tap of Human Linguistic Intelligence. People aren’t simple-minded robots who take everything literally. Robbie the Robot, hearing the Golden Rule, might try to plug you into the recharger, but people know better.”
The difference between the positive and negative formulations is very nearly as trivial, but not quite because it does tie into positive versus negative rights. However one could quite easily make up examples where “don’t do to others what you would not like done to yourself” gave equally absurd results – if you insist on taking it literally.
“The Pagans were the original libertarians”
Er, which Pagans? The Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the ancient Chinese… about all these societies had in common other than a pantheon of many deities was slavery.
If we restrict ourselves to the Greeks, Plato certainly was about as far from a libertarian as it is possible to be. Epicurus, maybe.
Natalie:
Problem with that is that there are people who actually like to be forced to do things. I know it’s hard to believe, but I actually had people admit this to me.
Just for the record though, I do think that both Christianity and Judaism (both in the OT and in the rest of the canon) have a lot of ideas and principles very much in tune with libertarianism.
Natalie, about all those pagan societies had in common with Christianity was also slavery.
Christianity is a religion for slaves developed by the Roman Empire to keep an empire passive.
The Greek and Roman Pagan societies had more freedom than Christian societies up to quite a recent point, with even slaves free to choose which Gods they would worship.
The followers of the Palestinian Redeemer Complex have probably murdered more people and committed more genocide under the pretext of saving people than than even the communists have killed in the name of their Utopia. Certainly this would be true if the numbers murdered were expressed as a percentage of the global population at that time.
It seems very likely that a monotheistic religion will tend easily towards a totalitarian “one truth” world view.
I suppose it was inevitable that a post about the former Archbishop of Canterbury would descend into a debate about religion. But that was not the point of the original post, or of my comment to Jamess.
I am an atheist, but I happen to live in the US Deep South where people wear their (Christian) religion on their sleeves. It is useful for me to have available libertarian arguments which will resonate with them. It’s simply a tactic.
Then I must give them credit for developing a more humane strategy than the one they used in suppressing the three major Servile Wars and innumerable lesser rebellions of the previous eight centuries of empire, namely crucifixion and the arena.
You are right in one thing, when Christianity came to Rome it was a religion of slaves. It was persecuted explicitly on the grounds that it gave slaves ideas above their station.
Yet it eventually became an authoritarian religion popular with masters which gave them ideas to justify their station.
Which means more? How does anyone answer that? Best not to pretend to.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Socrates was executed for “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges”.
The Spartan helot had (not that I know this for sure but I’ll grant it for the sake of argument) the freedom to choose his gods. The French medieval serf did not. But the serf could not be killed at whim, whereas the Crypteia rite demanded that a young Spartan warrior kill a helot without trial. This served both as an initiation and to keep the helots controlled.
Yet I could equally well put forward some aspects of both Epicurean philosophy and their great rivals the Stoics as being favourable to liberty – as I could cite Christian justifications of slavery and Christian abolitionists. Spanish Catholicism produced the Spanish Inquisition and Bartolome de las Casas, who wasn’t a one-off.
I could cite other examples but both other things I ought to be doing and slight guilt at thread derailment mean that I won’t.
The general moral is that the moral of history is notably hard to discern.
Natalie, are you really arguing that the Roman Empire became more humane after the adoption of Christianity?
Surely Lucifer was the original libertarian.
I’m not entirely sure about that, 666.
“Here at least
We shall be free; th’ Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.”
Satan wanted his own freedom, but not that of others; he wanted to rule. Which doesn’t sound all that libertarian to me. (At least, according to Milton, but I suppose he could have been biased.)
No, not really. To argue that I would need to cover so many emperors and so wide a variety of conditions that general conclusions would be meaningless. As meaningless, I submit, as “the Pagans were the first libertarians.”
Which emperor did you have in mind? Constantine was no crueller than most of those who held the purple, but to my mind a huge black mark against his name is the very thing he is most praised for: corrupting Christianity by enmeshing it with power. In contrast Valentinian was counted a “father of the West” by Paul Marks for setting an example of tolerance – although as he says in the post, he was nothing like a modern liberal democrat let alone libertarian.
Then there are all those forgettable emperors like Honorius. Humane or not? He is credited by some with abolishing the gladiatorial games, although others claim that they merely died out on his watch. He seems to have spent most of his time assassinating his relatives and dodging assassination plots from them so I doubt he had much time to consider the ethics of the matter. The Romans were, perhaps, becoming more humane. Possibly the good influence of Christianity – or equally possibly the good influence of the “barbarians” who deserve a better press.
To get back to your original question, it would be equally difficult to generalise about the other side of the equation, pagan emperors. Caligula?- mad as a box of something nastier than frogs. Julius or Augustus? – both fairly merciful for their times – but then again Augustus was the Pagan equivalent of Constantine, that is the one who instituted the Imperial Cult. Now that was not what you’d call libertarian paganism. Domitian? – bad but not mad. He appointed himself perpetual censor so that he could control public morals. No libertarian he. Roman paganism seems to have been far more of a state religion than Greek. Yet I have no doubt that there were thousands upon thousands who did attempt to live a good life in accordance with pagan ethics and who acknowledged the ethic of reciprocity, which was common in Greek philosophy.
The very fact that so much depends on who is emperor at the moment illustrates that political structures are vastly better predictors than religion of what a society will turn out to be like. I suppose I do believe that eventually, in a very long term, vague and statistical sense of “eventually”, Christianity did make Rome a less horrible civilisation (although I also believe that to advocate it on societal grounds is missing the point). But having an absolute ruler made for a worse society almost immediately and inevitably. Each good emperor was only a breathing space until the next bad one.
I don’t like the argument that Carey and others puts forward about the ‘poor children’ being burdened with debt, as it has an altruistic flavour. The national debt is a burden on us now. How about ‘thou shalt not steal’ (pretty sure that’s biblical and not shakespeare) as an alternative moral guide.
The impious smite robot didn’t like my post about various Roman emperors. Johnathan, if you would be so kind…
Alisa, you write “Problem with that is that there are people who actually like to be forced to do things. I know it’s hard to believe, but I actually had people admit this to me.”
Same here – but I don’t see that as a huge philosophical problem. They can just get together and live their own life in their own communities. Just stop bothering the rest of us.
Well, I can dream.
I observe that people who say they like being forced very strongly dislike it when the forcing concerns something dear to their heart. So you get people who are happy to advocate high taxes but who would go thermonuclear if anyone suggested re-criminalising homosexuality – or vice versa. Not that I think this observation is news to you!
Your post reminded me of the time my daughter got me to change her Facebook password when she was revising for her exams. She voluntarily gave up her short term freedom to fulfil her immediate desire to look at Facebook. But she wasn’t forced to do it and I don’t think Facebooking is an inalienable right; at least it can certainly be temporarily alienated. I offer that just as an illustration of voluntary submission to rules not necessarily being incompatible with freedom.
Smited – twice in two minutes!
While you wait with baited breath for my comments on ancient Rome to be unsmited, this 2005 post from Brian Micklethwait is well worth a read: Roman virtues and vices … and ours. He asserts more strongly than I or Paul Marks do that Christianity did make the Empire more humane.
He also discusses then current affairs:
@laird
that’s Milton, but in the Bible God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat the apple they will die. Lucifer persuades Eve to eat the apple which she does and then persuades Adam to try some as well.
Not only do they not die, so God was lying, but they also become wise knowing the difference between good and evil, becoming like gods themselves.
So in this story Lucifer is clearly acting as a libertarian, wanting mankind to become wise, be enlightened and make decisions for themselves. God acts like a petty tyrant wanting to keep mankind ignorant and enslaved.
But George, have you no libertarian respect for the sanctity of a contract, or for freedom of association which must include freedom to expel people from your property, or for the prerogative of the wronged party to refrain from exacting the stated penalty for breach of contract if he so chooses?
(Oh Lord make me less flippant, but not yet.)
A plea to any Samizdata gods, demigods or demiurges who may be passing: can you do anything to fix the way that old posts, like the one of Brian’s I linked to earlier, have had what were dashes replaced by question marks? There is also a similar problem where certain characters have been replaced by funny little diamonds.
A contract has to be agreed Natalie, one party making threats does not constitute an contract.
Also has it been established that the particular god in question has ownership of the universe or even just the garden of eden?
Natalie, not that you and I seem to be in any real disagreement about anything here, but: this, indeed, is not a philosophical problem – rather, it is a psychological one. I presume your daughter possesses a certain healthy doze of individuality in her personality – just like most people do. Most people are not extremely individualist or collectivist, they are a mixture of both. But the people I am talking about are the ones who were cursed/blessed (depending on one’s psychological makeup) with excessive collectivism in their psyche. These are people who first and foremost see themselves as part of something much larger, stronger and more significant than themselves – a collective, and only see their being individuals as secondary to that. To these people, the question who controls the collective is also secondary to their belonging to it. So they may be the enforcers or the enforcees of the “collective will”. depending on circumstances and on other traits of their personalities – but they are mostly fine with either position, as long as the collective is kept whole and superior. But then, of course, you also have the real power maniacs, the plain opportunists, and the useful idiots. Throw all those into the mixture, and you get all kinds of social and political structures all of us are familiar with.
Good point, George. But I always had a certain admiration for Milton’s Satan, too. Even though he’s not a libertarian.
Satan worshipers, the lot of you!
Laird, I’ve never read Paradise Lost, I’d like to give it a go, but don’t imagine it would be an easy read. I do know how influential Milton’s Satan has been in film and literature and to that extent agree he is a fantastic character.
On a semi serious note I think there are parallels between Lucifer and Prometheus. Much progress in human history, especially and still to this day in Science, comes from those who question the prevailing paradigm and defy authority. To this extent I think Libertarians are closer to the infernal realms than those who would blindly submit to cosmic authority.
That cosmic authority thing, there seems to be some confusion about it among atheists, so I’d like to take this opportunity to clear it up: if one really is an atheist (and not an anti-theist, which would be very un-libertarian*), then God does not exist, and so does not any authority supposedly derived from It/Him/Her. IOW, it is all in the people’s minds, *and since when are libertarians supposed to be concerned with that which goes on within the privacy of other people’s minds?
Don’t think anyone has claimed to be an atheist on this thread Alisa, or even anti-theist.
I have attacked a particular theology that presents god as a cosmic authority. I don’t accept criticising a theology, or even all theology, as un-libertarian any more than criticising an ideology is un-libertarian.
Given that I had christianity presented to me as truth when my mind was young and still forming I think it is un-libertarian of you to suggest that I should not be examining it or criticising it .
Sorry if I strawmaned you, George:-) Also, I actually hate it when people go on about what is libertarian and what is not – and yet, there I am…In any case, it is not the criticism of anything that bothers me, but the premise that both God and his authority actually exist, being apparently laid by someone who is not a believer (which I took you to be).
Agree that when libertarians start arguing about who is more libertarian/un-libertarian the conversation has probably gone off track.
Not sure I can entirely claim to be a libertarian anyway, just that things seem to be moving so fast in the other direction I’ve instinctively moved to this side of the sea-saw.
Another good point, George (about Prometheus).
FYI, Alisa is calling me out, not you. She knows that I am an atheist. But Alisa, I disagree with your comment. One doesn’t have to believe in a cosmic deity to discuss the implications of religious mythology/doctrine, any more than one has to believe in the existence of Zeus to discuss Prometheus. (For that matter, one doesn’t have to believe in the existence of the Star Trek universe to discuss the relative merits of the Ferengi Laws of Acquisition or the warrior ethos of the Klingons.) I can say I appreciate the morality of John Galt without saying that I believe he actually lived.
Anyway, many people do so believe, so it’s entirely proper that knowledgable people be familiar with the etiology of those beliefs (the founding mythology, as it were) and its implications.
“I refute it thus!”
Laird, I wasn’t really calling out anyone in particular, but somehow I took George, of all people, as personalizing atheists in general (apparently without any real justification). Plus, you do have a point. My comment was not well thought-out. It was based on something that has been bothering me about atheists’ proclamations for a while, but I’ll need to give it more thought, and then have it better articulated. Rain check?:-)
Rain check! 🙂
would like to say how much I’ve enjoyed this thread. Will make note not to attempt to debate ancient civilisations with Natalie Solent in future as she clearly knows her stuff and I generally try to keep my masochistic tendencies in check.
Ave Satanis!
Once a Prime Minister could select any clergman as a Bishop – and any Bishop as Archbishop.
Then things were changed (a bit like the Bar Association in many American States have managed to both prevent the free election of judges AND prevented Goverors from appointing anyone who is not on their list – thus giving the left control of the courts in conservative States like Alaska) to a Prime Minister choosing between two candidates.
The leftist establishment had a candidate in mind for Archbishop of Canterbury in the time of Mrs Thatcher (I believe it was a degenerate Archbishop of York they had in mind to appoint to Canterbury) – but how to make “that women” choose their candidate?
“We will make the monkey canidate [a candidate picked to be so absurd that no one would appoint him] George Carey – even that women could not appoint HIM”. Common-as-muck (and so on – for example, he even believes in God…..).
Of course “that women” did just that – and thus we got the only sort of sensible Archbishop of Canterbury of my lifetime.
I am reminded of the words of a Scots clergyman of the 18th century (who left Scotland and became the head of Princeton – takeing a leading role in the creation of the United States) about the “moderate” (what would now be called “liberal”) party in the Church of Scotland (forgive me – I am quoting from memory, but the meaning is correct).
“They are very tolerate, but two things they will not tolerate – scripture and the opinion of the common people. The word of God and the word of what they consider inferior men – they will tolerate neither of these things”.
As for the historical stuff above.
No slaves could not do as they likes concerning religion.
You worshipped who your master told you to – and if he said not to worship a deity you did not.
Remember a master could mutiliate you or just kill you.
There were Roman laws forbidding a master to do various things – but they came in the evil period of the Empire (or what is considered the evil period by some comment people above).
The laws against forcing men to fight to the death for the amusment of others also came in this evil period (although only after a long struggle).
Although there is a more simple way to find out when evil took over a Roman town.
Look in the rubbish heaps.
In the classical period you will find unwanted babies discarded in the rubbish.
In the evil period the traditional practice of infanticide was forbidden.
Of course we have returned to more enlightened ways.
Babies are again discarded in the rubbish.
The Empire lives.
I’m an Episcopalian, and the crack I have always heard is that the church consists of liberals and conservatives – divided by the altar rail. Somehow the priesthood tends liberal, while the congregation… not so much. Rather like the faculty/student divide in academia, now that I think of it.
Agreed Surellin.
As for the Classical World.
The Classical World went into stagnation with UNIFICATION (the Romans may have been wonderful once – but one power should control all of a civilization) and the establishment of a disquised military dictatorship under “Augustus”.
People could no longer even privately own weapons and train with them – the Repubican spirit was defeated (and with it went hopes of freedom in other things also).
Civilization did not progress in the centuries that followed – if anything it went backwards.
However, it was not till the time of Diocletian that taxes and regulations reached an unsustainable level.
The so called “ender of the third century crises” (why are so many historians morons?) actually signed the death warrent of Classical Civilization.
So Christianity (whatever its other faults) did not destroy Classical Civilization – because it was already mortally wounded.
As for the Middle Ages.
A age of violence and human filth – litterally (lots of human waste all over the place till the 19th century).
However, it was also an age (and this is often forgotten) of massive technological and economic advance.
Yes, contrary to what people think, it was the Roman Empire that was the time of technological stagnation and lack of economic (and other) inovation.
The Middle Ages (after the period of near total collapse we know as the “Dark Ages” – and, revisionists please not, they were very nasty in most places) was a time of fundemental changes – of new ideas in just about every practical undertaking.
Possibly because there was no political unity (lots of different kingdoms and so on) and because the state did not have a monopoly on armed force.
So Kings (and so on) faced the threat of economic life moving to other lands – AND the threat of armed revolt if their taxes got to high, or they tried to steal too much land from powerful families.
In theory there is no private land under Feudal law – but, in reality, private landownership was rather more secure under Feudal law than it was under Roman law.
Roman law assumes the citizen – bowing down to the magistrate.
Feudal law assumes the subject – supposedly an inferior person to a citizen, but a “subject” implies a PERSONAL loyality (not a collective one – as with “the citizens”) based on sworn oaths (oaths that go TWO WAYS – as the monarch swears oaths also) and a readyness to use weapons.
The modern change in England from subjects of a personal monarch to “citizens” (of a collective community) has been bad (not good) for liberty.
Of course the sworn word depends on actually believeing in the deity it is sworn by.
Educated Romans (like educated Greeks) normally did not actually believe in Athena and so on (although some of them did).
Educated men (even Scholastic Philosophers – whose contributions to logic and so on are very impressive) actually did tend to believe in the Christian God.
Some people still broke their sworn word.
But it was no longer considered NORMAL to do so.
For all its impressive facade the Roman Empire is a period without HOPE.
No hope of going anywhere else (where are you going to go – the forests of the German tribes? the deserts of Pathia?).
And no hope of fundemental change (for the better) at home.
For all its savagery of the Middle Ages – there was hope.
There were different Kingdoms to go to – and not all Kings were the same (and there were often real limits to their power).
And their were free cities and so on.
And, apart from for serfs, there was the weapon you carried (all free men would have a weapon of some sort).
Even the greatest lord had to be a little careful when dealing with a free man – unless he wanted an arrow in the back some Moonlit night.
And even the despised Church was often a force for GOOD.
Were you fairly poor and yet desired an education?
Monks and nuns.
The same for healing – and they were no fools.
Even the “savage Church law” was actually less harsh than secular law (or Roman law).
And CHOICE in law was unknown in the Roman Empire – in the Middle Ages one had Merchant Law, Church Law, Crown Law…….
“But they savage way they treated heretics”.
Not at all times and in all places – but YES.
It is a side effect of taking religion very seriously.
A man or women might devote their life to helping others in the name of Christ (who did that in the name of Zeus?).
But, yes, they might kill you for being (in their eyes) an enemy of Christ.
There was always the tradition in the Church that OPPOSED persecution.
But, alas, the arguments of Augustine proved too strong.
One of the reasons I despise this man.
By the way – there is nothing Feudal about Augustine (he would not understand how Sark is governed – at least was governed up to recently).
Augustine was a product of the Roman Empire – to his very core. Even serfdom was – it is from Diocletian (ordinary folk not allowed to move because it would make collecting taxes harder – soon local officials were allowed to keep “free citizens” in chains if they thought they MIGHT run away, do not tell our modern governments this….).
He would not understand the powers of a ruler being limited by his sworn oath. Of of the personal loyality of his subjects going to the death.
For example, the peronal kights of the King of France – who wore a blue sash, that they swore would become red (with their own blood) before they allowed the King to be killed or taken.
By the late 18th century this had become a dining club – translate the “the blue cordon” back into French and you will understand what it has come to mean in our age.
With such a rise of pleasure seeking “citizens” over subjects with a personal loyality (a loyality that went both ways – for, I say again, the King was expected to keep his oaths also) such things as the French Revolution were only to be expected.
And the Russian one.
After all in a feudal spirit a guard force would never allow their King to be killed (whilst they lived) – but also a King would never allow his guard to be slaughtered whilst he did nothing to help them.
Both Louis XVI and Nicky II of Russia did that.
The Swiss Guard were actually ordered to disarm by Louis (he was frightened of offending enlightened opinion) so they were tortured to death by cowards.
And Nicky sent most of the Imperial Guard to their deaths at the battle of Kovel in 1916.
“But he could not save them” – that misses the point.
You must share the dangers of those sworn to protect you – even if it means shareing their death.
Had he died with his guard at Kovel there could have been no Russian Revolution – because the Emperor would have become a martyr against the enemy.
The Russian people would have risen in fury against any threat to his son and family.
But Nicky was too modern – or too Roman (Imperial Roman).
Of course (thinking of a battle near here) Charles should have led in the reserves at Nasby – not fled leaving his sworn soldiers to their fate.
“Would you go to your death?” shouted the Scotsman who grabbed the bridle of the horse.
“Yes – if death comes” is the correct reply. But not the reply this modern monarch gave.
Only at his excution did he remember his oath.
And act as a Christian King should.
Liberty is not being the government – it is those laws by which your lives and goods are most your own.
So that not even a King can steal them.
Not being in government – but limits upon government.
It was the speech (as well as the calm courage) that won Charles back his reputation.
What would a Roman Emperor have had to say? They would not have the concepts to say anything of interest.
Very interesting Paul, and clearly it was wrong of me to state slave were free to worship their own gods in pagan societies.
This is far to well informed a blog to get away with things like that.
Who was the scotsman who grabbed the horse?
Are you perhaps being a bit harsh on the classical world, for a time was not life fairly good there, safe and ordered and what about the great university’s and libraries across the classical world, destroyed by Christian rulers and mobs.
Have you seen the film ‘Agora’ it tells the story of Hypatia of Alexandria a teacher at the university, philosopher and mathematician, she was pulled from her chariot and beaten to death by the Christian mob in the street.
George – I agree about Hypatia.
It would not suprise me if Cyril of Alexandria (who I have long called “the patron saint of serial killers” – not his official title) had a hand in this. He was an utterly dreadful man in every way – as far as I know he committed almost every known sin and crime (all his life – and not all sins are crimes of course) was then declared a saint and was made a Doctor of the Church as late as the 19th century.
Progrom agains the Jews? – Cyril’s your man.
Persecute Pagans? – Cyril will be on the case.
Win a theolgical debate by having your opponent’s tongue ripped out (and then say “divine worms” did it) – yes Cyril again.
He really would have fitted in nicely to a Hammer Horror film – and, as you say, he was not the only one.
How did he get his title in the 19th century?
Well Cyril really was a first class writer (a highly educated man) and theologian – Pope Leo XIII was right about that (but overlooking Cyril’s lack of any basic decency is a bit much – he acted like a Roman politician of the Imperial period, not a man of honour).
However, the Classical World had been stagnent for centuries before Cyril came along – for example Tiberius executed people for developing shatter resistant glass (fear of the glass industry being undermined), and Vaspasian crushed the development of machinary to move heavy building materials (fear of citizen builders, more imporant than slaves, losing their jobs – as he said as he got rid of the inventions “please allow me to feed my people”).
The Middle Ages may have smelled of human shit (which it did) – but no MONEY MAKING invention could have been supressed in this way. Indeed (contrary to what might be thought) the Orders of the Church were incredibly pleased when a new such invention came along – and made good use of it.
Just as without the orders (the Monks) the classical writings you mention would have been utterly lost (even more than they were).
“But there would have been no Dark Age without the Church”.
Not the case – the Classical World had a death warrent written for it.
Written by Dioletian – no civilization could survive, in the long term, the level of taxation and regulation he imposed upon it.
The vast majority of people reduced to serfdom (to make things easy for the tax collecters – taxes that reach almost modern levels in their insanity), all major factories nationalized (and so on).
And Diocletian was no friend of the Christians.
By they way – I do make a mistake above.
I should have said “the sacred blue”.
If you translate “sacred blue” back into French you will see how what had once been the guard of the French King turned into a dining club.
thanks for reply Paul, very interesting stuff.
Cyril is the villain of the piece in the Hypatia movie, I thought he was unpleasant in that but from what you say he was even worse in reality.
I thought the film was very good, very gripping, although the producers did take some liberties with the story and the manner of her death.
trailer is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbuEhwselE0