From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 29 2005 - 00:11:52 BST
Scott,
> Platt's just upset because no one is rushing in to defend his
> distortions and deliberately manipulated "skews" of history. So, let's
> be fair and ask outright... is there anyone else on this list that
> believes (1) "brutality" emerged only with the advent of "secular"
> power, (2) "freedom" is a "christian concept" given to us by "christian
> theology" and not reason (or, for that matter, any "other" theology),
> (3) the benevolent years during which the "church" wielded power were
> the freest, most democratic, wonderful years of utopic peace known in
> history??
>
> Scott:
> I thought you were against distortion? I see no indication that Platt holds
with (1) or (3). On (1) Platt is saying that the advent of the "secular" made
brutality worse, not that it didn't exist beforehand, and that, I think, is an
arguable topic (but one I'm not eager to argue about). On (3), where does he
say anything remotely like this? But I agree with you on (2), given that
Jefferson is not to be regarded as a Christian prophet.
[Arlo]
Hmm... well, if I'm guilty here its of "bullet-pointing", not distortion. This
whole topic started when Platt claimed that the "church" (being more moral than
secularism) has combatted secular-driven brutality in this century.
I said, that was utterly without historical context. That neither "religion" or
"secularism" are "brutal", but that historically both have acted with brutality
to reify their power. That is, the church, as a static historical structure, is
no more inherently "moral" than secular government. That BOTH commit brutality
to reify their power has everything to do with power.
Platt's eternal rejoiner has been that "the church" may have had some hiccups in
misinterpretation along the way, but that it is moral. "Secularism", however,
is immoral, and hence brutality is inherent in its structure.
Do you agree with Platt on this?
You see, Scott, my view is that "religion" (in the theological sense) and
"secularism" (in the rational reason sense) are philosophies "usurped" by power
structures, manipulated and used to propulgate their power.
"Christianity" is not brutal. Nor is "Marxism". (Since this is the dichotomous
dialogue at present). But the power structures, the static institutions that
form around these philosophies, are exclusively concerned with reifying this
power.
In short, the power structures of the past 1500 years were primarily religious
(papacy and papal monarchies). Historically, these power structures have acted
with brutality to reify their power, from the crusades to the conquest and
"settlement" of the American continents, to exterminating the Templars and
slow-roasting de Molay. With the transfer of power from religious to secular
government in the last few hundred years, we have seen brutality move this form
of government too.
You ask if secularism has been "more brutal". I'd concur. However, I'd disagree
with Platt (and you?) as to "why". You see, along with the transition of power
to secularism, what else has historically happened in the past few hundred
years? Amazing improvements in weaponry. The Papacy did not have napalm and
gattling guns, battleships and semi-automatics during the crusades. If it did,
I guarantee the death toll would've been higher. This is one reason why the
recent power brutalities have been worse.
Glad to hear you disagree with Platt that "freedom" is a gift of "christianity".
[Scott]
> I think it is also wrong when you say: "Why did the "church" not dissolve the
monarchical system throughout the era 360-1800 when it wielded the power to do
so?" While I certainly don't think the church even considered dissolving the
monarchical system, even if it did, it would not have had the power to do so.
Don't forget that the church often had to struggle with the kings to appoint
its own bishops. On occasion a monarch would create his own pope if necessary.
Good points. But it didn't even try, did it? It did not take a moral position
that "representative government" and "freedom" are "self-evident" rights.
Instead, it participated in power games, power building and preservation.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 29 2005 - 01:57:48 BST