Something that is interesting about the Bible is not what it acknowledges, but what it doesn't acknowledge.
What doesn't it acknowledge? That, somehow, pagan theologies rose to supremacy. The natural spiritual condition of mankind seems to be pagan, until otherwise divinely informed.
Do not believe this is an argument for the embrace of the various flavors of neo-paganism, much the contrary. Hinduism is probably the most evolved pagan tradition, which ultimately resolves in the thought that the dozens of deities are "manifestations" of a single divine being: ultimately, paganism resolves to monotheism.
Respecting the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the natural condition of all mankind. This is the conclusion of the founders of the United States of America, although the full implementation has yet to materialize nearly 250 years later.
In the same way that the believers of the Bible move forward in dogged monotheism while surrounded by paganism, it often seems the United States moves through the world without recognizing that the majority of people are ruled by some manner of dictatorial regime who regards "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as a laughable notion.
Comparing the founders' simple epiphany to the social reality in Europe, where the settlers that became Americans originated, it is a revelation indeed. The societies that cast off the bulk of trans-Atlantic adventurers were ailing. They had placed their outhouses too close to their wells, causing disease outbreaks. They had placed all of the power in the hands of landholders, who milked tenant farmers relentlessly. There were no new sources of revenue other than those that occurred when outlying areas were invaded and enslaved. If the outlying areas inhabitants fought off invasion, trade negotiations occurred between the representatives of the tyrants on either side of the conflict. As predicted in the bible, the rich got richer and the poor poorer. Business as usual, and nowhere was it stated that people were somehow entitled to life, liberty and certainly not the pursuit of happiness because they flatly were not.
The reason for this blog post is that it is still the case that in most places in the world, this still holds true.
The European tyrants were sponsored by the church, which endorsed their reigns as though approved by God. Conflicts with Islam, which occurred due to the clashing material ambitions of kings and caliphs, strengthened the identification of Europe with the church. (This is an important understanding, that most of the modern political ills in the world result from early rulers overriding their own religious mandates in pursuit of corporeal advantages, but in the current context this is digression. If the God of Abraham is shared between entities, there is no reason for them to be in conflict, but of course the implementation is tainted due to the corporeal machinery involved, this being driven by the ambitions of rulers.)
The church and analogous religious organizations in other systems are important entities, and their importance endures. Why? Because of the essential corporeal mission of the church remains essentially unchanged: to create a population that is essentially compliant while amassing stores of wealth and encompassing areas of food production that will allow the church to survive despite catastrophe. Does this mean the various churches is evil or corrupt? To some extent, yes. But it also ensures that in the event of catastrophe the teachings of various divinely inspired persons will persist.
Also, while the succinct statement of the American founders is seminal in terms of European thinking, it is not without precedent. English common law recognized various rights. The oldest parliament in Europe was the Viking althing as established in Iceland, a meeting of landholders to settle disputes in the law. Certain inherent rights were embodied as far back as the code of Hammurabi: for example, if one paid for a house to be built and the house fell down killing the owner, the builder would be killed: that is, the purchaser had a right to expect the house to stand.
Now, that the basis of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" being established by slaveholders and invaders is somewhat hypocritical on the face of it, and it is also often suggested that it would not have happened without the European settlers witnessing how the Indians lived-- those nature-borne persons who had never toiled in a feudal society, who went out into the land to hunt without fear of being put to death for poaching by the enforcers of the lord/baron/king.
However, and this is the primary point of this post, these fundamental rights truly and fully enmesh with the two Great Laws as stated by Jesus "to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and physical strength and love your neighbor as yourself". No church-sponsored ruler is required. The founders realization and the implementation thereof are distinct and work proceeds to this day.
But the point is that the implementation is limited to those places in which the realization of this innate rights, or similar enough basis for society, is recognized as the true operant condition of mankind. Everywhere else is subject to the whim of tyrants who establish their governments in order to achieve their own ambitions.
No comments:
Post a Comment