NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so elsewhere I made the comment that fundamentalist Christians (or at least what we would call that today) provided the foundations for liberal democracy. I recently wrote my philosophy thesis on such a topic, so I'll try to condense it here.

Liberalism is defined as centered on the individual and is based on four basic ideas: limited government, a specific purpose for government, imperfection of people, and worth of people. Government must be limited with a specific purpose to give room for the individual. People are imperfect, which is why government must be limited (don't want imperfect people to have absolute power) but also why it is necessary (can't get certain things like justice without it). People have to have some basic worth for why we would even care about the individual.

Democracy is defined as having the power of the state inherent in the people. It is based on two ideas: equality of the people and worth of the people. We have to have some basic equality among the people if we are going to give all of the people power rather than a select group. We also have to make that equality of a high enough stature to think that it's worth giving the people power.

Finally, there has to be a rule of law over and above both that can make these two mesh. We are trying to make individualism and the majority work together. Liberalism and democracy are essentially completely opposing principles.

According to fundamentalist Christianity (or at least the portion of it that I come from), people are inherently evil. The fall that occurred in Genesis spread selfishness and greed throughout the human race. At the same time, people are still made in the image of God. As such, it means that people are the second most important thing in the universe after God. Disrespecting a person would be disrespecting God. As such we need a government to protect people's rights, but we don't want it to start disrespecting people. The purpose of government then is justice (aka respect), which rights as we think of today come out of. The government is limited to that purpose because the people running the government are imperfect, and the people in general are to take care of the rest of the world themselves.

Similarly, people are equally made in the image of God. This provides the necessary equality and worth to establish democracy.

Finally, Christianity is all about the rule of law. That law is respect for people. Liberalism exists because of the worth that God has given to the individual. Likewise, democracy is acceptable because God has given men the power to rule. There is something to tie these two things together.

If you're looking for particular people that support these ideas, I suggest John Calvin and Samuel Rutherford.

Christianity certainly influenced the development of liberal democracy(as we know it), but I would hesitate to call it a foundation. More like the Enlightenment/ Classical Heritage.

Christianity certainly influenced the development of liberal democracy(as we know it), but I would hesitate to call it a foundation. More like the Enlightenment/ Classical Heritage.

If that's true then why, in thousands of years of human history across the entire globe and including every culture, liberal democracy isn't something that was independently developed in different places and at different times?

(And before you suggest Ancient Greece, perhaps you might want to look closer and see if mere oligarchy voting is sufficient for describing liberal democracy. ;) I think not )

Christianity certainly influenced the development of liberal democracy(as we know it), but I would hesitate to call it a foundation. More like the Enlightenment/ Classical Heritage.

The Enlightenment certainly was an important step, but it wouldn't have worked without Christianity, specifically the Reformation.

The political philosophy of the Enlightenment was based on natural law, which is in turn based on Thomas Aquinas (Catholic, not Reformed, but I'll get there). He argued that there are four kinds of law. The two that concern us are natural and revelatory. Revelatory law comes from God (like the Bible), and natural law comes from reason. They are supposed to eventually arrive at the same result.

The Reformation did two things. First, it reiterated the idea that people are imperfect, including in reason. It's not useless (else they wouldn't have bothered writing books and the like), but it is imperfect. Since reason can be used to support anything if we try hard enough, we need revelatory law to correct us when we go off track. Essentially, what we get out of natural law is reasonable, but we could not get there by reason alone.

Second, the Reformation provided a correction in the area of revelatory law. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic church increasing said that church tradition was as good a source for revelatory law as the Bible. It was also the interpreter of the Bible, so in both cases it controlled revelatory law. The Reformation took that power away and gave it back to the people by saying that 1) only the Bible provided revelatory law, and 2) anybody could interpret it. Granted, some interpretations are better than others, but you didn't have to be part of a specific group to do it.

Natural law in the Enlightenment was based on many of the ideas that came out of the Reformation (respect for people, etc.), but it was already losing the base for it. Once the move was made to Deism (and the atheism that followed), revelatory law was lost as a check on natural law. We now really could use reason to support anything. The full implications of that weren't realized until the 20th century. We are now getting to the point where we are starting to question if natural law should enter into things at all.

If that's true then why, in thousands of years of human history across the entire globe and including every culture, liberal democracy isn't something that was independently developed in different places and at different times?
To turn your question on it's head though, why did it take over a thousand years since the birth of Christianity for liberal democracy as we know it to form and only did so AFTER the absolute power of the Church had been broken?

[....]We are now getting to the point where we are starting to question if natural law should enter into things at all.

...elaborate (please)

Is the Vatican a liberal democracy now because the US isn't.

To turn your question on it's head though, why did it take over a thousand years since the birth of Christianity for liberal democracy as we know it to form and only did so AFTER the absolute power of the Church had been broken?

Because it takes time for ideas to work.

First, it was necessary to overthrow the Roman Empire. Then we had the hitch of other people wanting power and to maintain the hierarchy, so we ended up with the Middle Ages and the Catholic Church. It wasn't until that was taken care of, too, that liberalism and democracy were given the time necessary to develop.

When I hear "foundation," I think of the necessary understructure that supports something. Given that fundamentalist Christianity is obviously not in any way required to support liberal democracy, this topic doesn't last long in my universe.

But it's nice to see that Christians haven't let up in their endless pursuit of Ideas We Can Claim We Had First. :D

To turn your question on it's head though, why did it take over a thousand years since the birth of Christianity for liberal democracy as we know it to form and only did so AFTER the absolute power of the Church had been broken?

The Reformation had tremendous effects for the development of free(r) thought, thus laying the foundation for the Enlightenment and...liberal democracy.

And also witch burning.

If that's true then why, in thousands of years of human history across the entire globe and including every culture, liberal democracy isn't something that was independently developed in different places and at different times?


Because not all cultures develope identically. Now, the concept of liberal democracy flourished in the Enlightenment, which itself was based on the scientific discoveries of the time and a return to classical thought/ philosophy/ heritage. The Enlightenment developed within the context of the Christian civilization it resided in, but the Enlightenment WAS NOT a product of Christian thought/theology/philosophy and with it liberal democracy.

Within liberal democracy itself, you can find ideas such as seperation of church and state, which is clearly a reaction against the Church and the religious wars of the time, but that doesn't mean that democracy is the birthchild of Christianity.

To turn your question on it's head though, why did it take over a thousand years since the birth of Christianity for liberal democracy as we know it to form and only did so AFTER the absolute power of the Church had been broken?

It took a thousand years just to completely remove the Roman system (400 years for just the system and another 600 to remove the after effects of that great fall) THEN it took five, six, seven and eight hundred years to prove that the very the 'concept' of elite rule by divine ordination was not going to work at all ( won’t work because human kings are not divine Kings like Christ will be)… And there you are, for Christian religious freedom, Christian liberal democracy was created to protect all the Christians from the other Christians and everyone else.

...elaborate (please)

Occasionally, people are starting to come up with ideas that are supposed to make society better, but in the end completely undermine the whole idea.

For example, I have heard people talk about giving Presidential candidates psychiatric exams and disqualifying those that don't pass. It sounds good, but it contradicts what natural law (as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries) would have said. Essentially, we would be giving a select group of people veto power over who could be President. We would not be respecting the people's choice as the will of the majority. To borrow a line from Stalin, "The people who vote don't matter. The people who count the votes matter." (or something like that, could be off a little)

When I hear "foundation," I think of the necessary understructure that supports something. Given that fundamentalist Christianity is obviously not in any way required to support liberal democracy, this topic doesn't last long in my universe.

It does. Read the OP.

It took a thousand years just to completely remove the Roman system (400 years for just the system and another 600 to remove the after effects of that great fall) THEN it took five, six, seven and eight hundred years to prove that the very the 'concept' of elite rule by divine ordination was not going to work at all ( won’t work because human kings are not divine Kings like Christ will be)… And there you are, for Christian religious freedom, Christian liberal democracy was created to protect all the Christians from the other Christians and everyone else.

No, that is not why democracy never developed. It was because after Rome Western society became virtually enslaved to poverty and wholly preoccupied with war, breeding conditions completely hostile to the philosophical development of democracy, let alone implimentation of democratic concepts. Rome never developed democracy after the development of Christianity because during the A.D. years, Rome was a stagnant, decaying, autocratic bureaucracy that didn't allow for much politcal thinking.

Blaming Rome for stalling development 6 centuries after they were wiped from existance is wrong.

Because not all cultures develope identically. Now, the concept of liberal democracy flourished in the Enlightenment, which itself was based on the scientific discoveries of the time and a return to classical thought/ philosophy/ heritage. The Enlightenment developed within the context of the Christian civilization it resided in, but the Enlightenment WAS NOT a product of Christian thought/theology/philosophy and with it liberal democracy.

Sure it was, or else the Islamic Enlightenment period would have developed Liberal Democracy as well, but it did not.

Within liberal democracy itself, you can find ideas such as seperation of church and state, which is clearly a reaction against the Church and the religious wars of the time, but that doesn't mean that democracy is the birthchild of Christianity.

Again, sure it was, because the minor and young Christian groups wanted protection from the powerful Christian groups and they recognized their 'term in power' would likely be temporary they tried to create laws that would protect themselves once they were no longer in power. Thus, liberal democracy, like the OP said.

Take Christ and Christianity OUT of liberal democracy and western enlightenment and what do you get? Soviet Socialism and fascism for a couple of examples... This only goes to show that the Europeans themselves were not the sole instigation of liberal democracy in their governmental systems, Christianity value of individual is an essential ingredient that cannot be removed.

Because it takes time for ideas to work.

First, it was necessary to overthrow the Roman Empire. Then we had the hitch of other people wanting power and to maintain the hierarchy, so we ended up with the Middle Ages and the Catholic Church. It wasn't until that was taken care of, too, that liberalism and democracy were given the time necessary to develop.
But it does blow your theory out of the water given that you can get much more fundamental than the original church. If you view the US as the flower of liberal democracy, that's 1,778 years AFTER the fact with a whole hell of a lot of stuff in the middle that makes it hard to suddenly claim that fundamental Christianity has to be the foundation stone.

No, that is not why democracy never developed. It was because after Rome Western society became virtually enslaved to poverty and wholly preoccupied with war, breeding conditions completely hostile to the philosophical development of democracy, let alone implimentation of democratic concepts. Rome never developed democracy after the development of Christianity because during the A.D. years, Rome was a stagnant, decaying, autocratic bureaucracy that didn't allow for much politcal thinking.

Blaming Rome for stalling development 6 centuries after they were wiped from existance is wrong.

That's kinda the point. The ideas (from the Bible and Christianity) were there, but people were too busy with other stuff to do anything with them.

That's kinda the point. The ideas (from the Bible and Christianity) were there, but people were too busy with other stuff to do anything with them.
Oh! So all the other philosophies that men like Mills referenced from the classic texts that were written LONG before Christianity were... what now?

But it does blow your theory out of the water given that you can get much more fundamental than the original church. If you view the US as the flower of liberal democracy, that's 1,778 years AFTER the fact with a whole hell of a lot of stuff in the middle that makes it hard to suddenly claim that fundamental Christianity has to be the foundation stone.

Not if you figure that the Catholic church smothered those ideas necessary. So it wasn't until the Reformation and the breaking of the stranglehold of Catholicism that the ideas were allowed to develop more freely. Again, ideas take a while to develop, so it wasn't overnight after that either.

Take Christ and Christianity OUT of liberal democracy and western enlightenment and what do you get? Soviet Socialism and fascism for a couple of examples... This only goes to show that the Europeans themselves were not the sole instigation of liberal democracy in their governmental systems, Christianity value of individual is an essential ingredient that cannot be removed.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that, I really don't.

Not if you figure that the Catholic church smothered those ideas necessary. So it wasn't until the Reformation and the breaking of the stranglehold of Catholicism that the ideas were allowed to develop more freely. Again, ideas take a while to develop, so it wasn't overnight after that either.
Pssst... you might not have noticed, but the Catholic Church didn't cover the whole world of Christianity, nor was it, in its current form, the first Church.

So, explain again why the early Church did not operate as a liberal democracy when the ideas were there.

Oh! So all the other philosophies that men like Mills referenced from the classic texts that were written LONG before Christianity were... what now?

Not compatible with liberal democracy. You do see a few elements of it in a few places (Aristotle, Polybius, etc.), but they didn't have the philosophical background to make the political theory work.

Not if you figure that the Catholic church smothered those ideas necessary. So it wasn't until the Reformation and the breaking of the stranglehold of Catholicism that the ideas were allowed to develop more freely. Again, ideas take a while to develop, so it wasn't overnight after that either.

Don't forget that the Church itself required reformation, they (collectively) went throuh vast period where being a 'Christian" wasn't really required to be a bishop or deacon in the Church itself. It could be argued that the Church went through centuries of NOT being Christian itself.

Don't forget that the Church itself required reformation, they (collectively) went throuh vast period where being a 'Christian" wasn't really required to be a bishop or deacon in the Church itself. It could be argued that the Church went through centuries of NOT being Christian itself.

There is that too.

Pssst... you might not have noticed, but the Catholic Church didn't cover the whole world of Christianity, nor was it, in its current form, the first Church.

So, explain again why the early Church did not operate as a liberal democracy when the ideas were there.

The early church DID operate as a Liberal Democracy, with leaders that were universal and didn't require 'voting' (like the apostles) But even when the apostles died off they voted for replacements as needed. Then later, Christian groups would send representatives to meet and vote over issues that they might have with other christian groups. Like a representative liberal democracy today.

Not compatible with liberal democracy. You do see a few elements of it in a few places (Aristotle, Polybius, etc.), but they didn't have the philosophical background to make the political theory work.
Uh... right. Again, reference the fact that the founding fathers (Most of whom were Deists or liberal, not fundamentalist, Christians) constantly referenced enlightenment texts by folks like John Locke whose ideas were fundamentally opposed that of Christianity (Protestantism).

Pssst... you might not have noticed, but the Catholic Church didn't cover the whole world of Christianity, nor was it, in its current form, the first Church.

So, explain again why the early Church did not operate as a liberal democracy when the ideas were there.

The Orthodox Church disagrees mainly in the area of church government. That doesn't help. Is there another group that you are thinking of?

As for the early church, they were so busy trying to survive persecution and the like that they didn't have time to work on things like political theory, and it didn't look like they would ever have any power to do anything about it anyway, so why bother? By the time that they could do something about it, everything was falling apart, so people just ended up adopting what was the leftovers of the Roman system. The emerging Catholic church got behind it, most people were still trying to survive, and we get the Middle Ages.

Sure it was, or else the Islamic Enlightenment period would have developed Liberal Democracy as well, but it did not.

Islamic "Enlightenment"? Honestly, that's the first time I've ever heard the Islamic Golden Age called that. The Golden Age is not remotely comporable to the Enlightenment in anyway, other then it was the flowering of two civilizations.


Again, sure it was, because the minor and young Christian groups wanted protection from the powerful Christian groups and they recognized their 'term in power' would likely be temporary they tried to create laws that would protect themselves once they were no longer in power. Thus, liberal democracy, like the OP said.

No. Just no. That is arguably the weakest arguement I've ever heard in my life. If what you said was true, than Germany should've been the first liberal democracy in the Western World. Oh, but it was the last. Oh well...

Take Christ and Christianity OUT of liberal democracy and western enlightenment and what do you get? Soviet Socialism and fascism for a couple of examples... This only goes to show that the Europeans themselves were not the sole instigation of liberal democracy in their governmental systems, Christianity value of individual is an essential ingredient that cannot be removed.

You might want to look up Socialism, fascism, and the Enlightenment too, while you're at it. Have you never heard of Adam Smith? Or natural property rights? You might want to reconsider the socialism part of that. And fascism? How does that gel with the belief that all men have inborn rights?

In case you are unaware, the Enlightenment is known for its support of deism and secularism.

Uh... right. Again, reference the fact that the founding fathers (Most of whom were Deists or liberal, not fundamentalist, Christians) constantly referenced enlightenment texts by folks like John Locke whose ideas were fundamentally opposed that of Christianity (Protestantism).

Deist? Less than a handful.

Liberal Christian? A liberal Christian two hundred years ago IS a fundamentalist Christian by today’s standards. ;)


(I am so sorry I am out of time, I have to go for a bit, and here we are having such fun :( )

The early church DID operate as a Liberal Democracy, with leaders that were universal and didn't require 'voting' (like the apostles) But even when the apostles died off they voted for replacements as needed. Then later, Christian groups would send representatives to meet and vote over issues that they might have with other christian groups. Like a representative liberal democracy today.

Unfortunately, this only lasted for the first century to century and a half. Then the power of the bishops took over.

The Orthodox Church disagrees mainly in the area of church government. That doesn't help. Is there another group that you are thinking of?
A number of them actually.

As for the early church, they were so busy trying to survive persecution and the like that they didn't have time to work on things like political theory, and it didn't look like they would ever have any power to do anything about it anyway, so why bother? By the time that they could do something about it, everything was falling apart, so people just ended up adopting what was the leftovers of the Roman system. The emerging Catholic church got behind it, most people were still trying to survive, and we get the Middle Ages.
So your whole thesis rests on the idea that the ideas were there, but for over 1,000 years no one did anything with it, but, suddenly, it became the foundation for liberal democracy ignoring every OTHER idea and event that had happened in those years.

THAT was your thesis?

Unfortunately, this only lasted for the first century to century and a half. Then the power of the bishops took over.
Must not have been taking their ideas too seriously then, huh?

So your whole thesis rests on the idea that the ideas were there, but for over 1,000 years no one did anything with it, but, suddenly, it became the foundation for liberal democracy ignoring every OTHER idea and event that had happened in those years.

THAT was your thesis?

I believe that it is still considered a classic at the blatant bullshit faculty of pullitoutofyourass university.

But it does blow your theory out of the water given that you can get much more fundamental than the original church. If you view the US as the flower of liberal democracy, that's 1,778 years AFTER the fact with a whole hell of a lot of stuff in the middle that makes it hard to suddenly claim that fundamental Christianity has to be the foundation stone.

Well, there were a number of colonies that had a government similar to that of the U.S. in terms of democracy-ness and freedoms guaranteed, but that would only push it back about 150 or so years, and the ones that did sure as hell had nothing to do with fundamentalist Christians.*

*Well, technically Rhode Island did, but that's only because of who kicked them out of Massachusetts.

A number of them actually.

Like what? The Waldensians? Wycliff's followers? Most every other group that I can think of was viciously stamped out by the Catholic church.

So your whole thesis rests on the idea that the ideas were there, but for over 1,000 years no one did anything with it, but, suddenly, it became the foundation for liberal democracy ignoring every OTHER idea and event that had happened in those years.

THAT was your thesis?

That's pretty well it.

If time is the only thing that you arguing against, why did it take so long for liberal democracy to establish itself if the ancients came up with it?

As nice as your idea is, and as well thought out as it seems to be, please address a few things I think are flaws.

To give an example of one liberal democracy: the US (it started that way at least). The American system was founded by deists and atheists, who took their ideas largely from people like John Locke who (if memory serves) was also a deist. Liberal Democracy began after the Enlightenment, which happened to also spark the Reformation. Liberal democracy and the Reformation have the same cause, the Enlightenment, but the Reformation did not cause liberal democracy any more than a more liberal attitude allow Christianity to be interpreted in such a way as to validate liberal democracy. After all, at the time any idea which was not supported by the Church was more likely to die than to not (even heliocentricism had a tough time of it).

Although ancient Greece and Rome did not have liberal democracies, they did start the path towards them by introducing some basic ideas. These ideas were re-examined during the Enlightenment period when centuries of Church rule began to wane. Christianity witnessed a dramatic increase in power around the fourth century (when it was made the official religion of Rome by emperor Constantine). That is when Christianity dominated all the religions in the area and spread to rule pretty much all of Europe. Christianity had siezed control completely by the turn of the millenium, so if Christianity really did provide the foundations for liberal democracy (instead of just be interpreted to suppor them) then why didn't any form sooner?

Also, I have noticed nowhere in the Bible where the laws of God coincide or even control the laws of mankind. The laws of the Bible place obedience to God over all else, without providing any rationale besides "God is right because this book which he dictated the contense of says he is right." (circular logic for those who didn't notice) Even then, in the Bible God seems to go against his own rules time and time again. But I digress.

The laws of humanism were developed during this time period, correct? Humanism does everything you describe of a liberal democracy. It was also developed during the Enlightement time period. Perhaps you have caught hold of a coincidence of the Reformation and gave it credit for what humanism and (to a degree) romanticism did. Humanism and romanticism stressed human potential and the value of human life. These combined with the philosophy pushed forward by John Locke and philosophers like him added the ideas of social contract, separation of powers, etcetera. Meanwhile, the premier philosopher of the age who asserted that humans were naturally evil (Hobbes) was a supporter of monarchy, so it seems to me that he and the Church, which both opperated under the idea that humans are innately evil, would have wanted tighter control to keep that evil in line, much as it had for centuries.

Liberal democracy, like the abolition of slavery, the continuation of slavery, dictatorships, theocracies, discrimination, anti-discriminatory feeling, etcetera recieved its support in terms of religion from interpretations of specific parts of Christianity, but not from a Christian foundation.

Don't forget that the Church itself required reformation, they (collectively) went throuh vast period where being a 'Christian" wasn't really required to be a bishop or deacon in the Church itself. It could be argued that the Church went through centuries of NOT being Christian itself.
That can't even be argued. Its a down right fact.

Like what? The Waldensians? Wycliff's followers? Most every other group that I can think of was viciously stamped out by the Catholic church.



That's pretty well it.

If time is the only thing that you arguing against, why did it take so long for liberal democracy to establish itself if the ancients came up with it?

Because of fundamentalist christianity.

Must not have been taking their ideas too seriously then, huh?

Short version: practice became tradition, tradition turned into law.

People were put in charge of large areas (bishops) for co-ordination (a good idea). Then people (who were used to the centralized power of Rome) started to look to the bishops as people to be obeyed rather than people with a job to do. Power became descending rather than ascending.

Well, there were a number of colonies that had a government similar to that of the U.S. in terms of democracy-ness and freedoms guaranteed, but that would only push it back about 150 or so years, and the ones that did sure as hell had nothing to do with fundamentalist Christians.*

*Well, technically Rhode Island did, but that's only because of who kicked them out of Massachusetts.

Last I checked, Puritans would be considered fundamentalists today, and they founded just about all of New England in one way or another.

Last I checked, Puritans would be considered fundamentalists today, and they founded just about all of New England in one way or another.

That they did. However, none of New England that was founded by the Puritans was a liberal democracy or anything remotely close until after they no longer had power. And once again, I point to Rhode Island. First liberal democracy in New England, founded by people the Puritans kicked out.

Like what? The Waldensians? Wycliff's followers? Most every other group that I can think of was viciously stamped out by the Catholic church.



That's pretty well it.

If time is the only thing that you arguing against, why did it take so long for liberal democracy to establish itself if the ancients came up with it?

Robbopolis, you base you thesis on the idea that since the West was Christian at the time, that Christianity was the sole cause of liberal democracy/ the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is remarkable for its rebellion against contemporary Christian ideals, such as the union of church and state, the use of the bible as the source of knowledge for the universe, and using the bible as a code of laws. Otherwise, Sunday church would be compulsatory in a liberal democracy.

The Enlightenment finds its sources in an empiracal investigation of the world, something that Christianity at the time was against. Liberal Democracy was born out of the fruits of philosophers attempting to come up with a rational system of government, who in turn where influenced by the transformation of the world from a religious one to a rational, scientific one. They were far more influenced by scientific discoveries than Christian theology. Christianity had an influence, of course, but it doesn't nearly deserve the attention you're giving it, and to call it the prime source of the development of democracy is a blatant fallacy.

That's pretty well it.

If time is the only thing that you arguing against, why did it take so long for liberal democracy to establish itself if the ancients came up with it?
One: You are ignoring the fact that during Renaissance, when the absolute power of the Church had been broken (But before the Reformation) the classic ideas were once again rediscovered with a vengeance (Many of which influenced the Reformation in the first place. THAT event didn't suddenly spring up out of nowhere after all). Two: I agree that Christianity had a profound influence upon the events that shaped what would become liberal democracy, but I would not call it the foundation as you do, rather I am trying to show that MANY ideas blended in together to create Western liberal democracy (Because you also ignore the Eastern half of the planet).

To give an example of one liberal democracy: the US (it started that way at least). The American system was founded by deists and atheists, who took their ideas largely from people like John Locke who (if memory serves) was also a deist. Liberal Democracy began after the Enlightenment, which happened to also spark the Reformation. ...

...

...

The laws of humanism were developed during this time period, correct? Humanism does everything you describe of a liberal democracy. It was also developed during the Enlightement time period. Perhaps you have caught hold of a coincidence of the Reformation and gave it credit for what humanism and (to a degree) romanticism did. Humanism and romanticism stressed human potential and the value of human life. These combined with the philosophy pushed forward by John Locke and philosophers like him added the ideas of social contract, separation of powers, etcetera. Meanwhile, the premier philosopher of the age who asserted that humans were naturally evil (Hobbes) was a supporter of monarchy, so it seems to me that he and the Church, which both opperated under the idea that humans are innately evil, would have wanted tighter control to keep that evil in line, much as it had for centuries.



Some nitpicking...

Locke was a Christian as far as I know, but he was a liberal one for his time, he even supported tolerance, except for those heretic Catholics and atheists.
And the Enlightenment occurred after the Reformation not before it. In fact, the Reformation helped the Enlightenment occur, although there were more important factors. I think you're thinking of the Renaissance, which did help lead to the Reformation, and the Renaissance was in many ways similar to the Enlightenment.

Also, Humanism kind of became more influential in Europe after the Renaissance, so it actually occurred a bit earlier. As well, very ironically, Hobbes was basically an atheist.

But I agree, ideas developed in times of less religious fundamentalism (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Ancient Greece) are being attributed to times like the Reformation, which was certainly a step forward, but not so much.

Last I checked, Puritans would be considered fundamentalists today, and they founded just about all of New England in one way or another.
Contrary to what your elementary school teacher may have told you, the Pilgrims did not found all of the New England colonies. Nor did New England constitute all of the original 13 states.

Hell, Penn was founded by Quakers.

I would think the humanistic philosophy of the Renaissance is the primary origin of liberal democracy, which then evolved through the Enlightenment and the rise of capitalism.

Robbopolis, you base you thesis on the idea that since the West was Christian at the time, that Christianity was the sole cause of liberal democracy/ the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is remarkable for its rebellion against contemporary Christian ideals, such as the union of church and state, the use of the bible as the source of knowledge for the universe, and using the bible as a code of laws. Otherwise, Sunday church would be compulsatory in a liberal democracy.

The Enlightenment finds its sources in an empiracal investigation of the world, something that Christianity at the time was against. Liberal Democracy was born out of the fruits of philosophers attempting to come up with a rational system of government, who in turn where influenced by the transformation of the world from a religious one to a rational, scientific one. They were far more influenced by scientific discoveries than Christian theology. Christianity had an influence, of course, but it doesn't nearly deserve the attention you're giving it, and to call it the prime source of the development of democracy is a blatant fallacy.

Indeed, the Enlightenment was more a product of the Scientific Revolution than the Reformation. Basically, I totally agree.

Last I checked, Puritans would be considered fundamentalists today, and they founded just about all of New England in one way or another.

New England's democratic system didn't have nearly the impact on the development of the US's democracy as did Virginia's. Not to mention the fact that if you've ever read anything on New England, the society was HIGHLY stratified with church leaders being the real leaders. Hardly fits our idea of liberal democracy

As nice as your idea is, and as well thought out as it seems to be, please address a few things I think are flaws.

To give an example of one liberal democracy: the US (it started that way at least). The American system was founded by deists and atheists, who took their ideas largely from people like John Locke who (if memory serves) was also a deist. Liberal Democracy began after the Enlightenment, which happened to also spark the Reformation. Liberal democracy and the Reformation have the same cause, the Enlightenment, but the Reformation did not cause liberal democracy any more than a more liberal attitude allow Christianity to be interpreted in such a way as to validate liberal democracy. After all, at the time any idea which was not supported by the Church was more likely to die than to not (even heliocentricism had a tough time of it).

While some of the people who were instrumental in starting the American Republic were deists (Jefferson and Franklin, etc.), the society as a whole was extremely Christian. The Great Awakening happened shortly before the revolution, providing a large Christian base in society. And the Founding Fathers were building on a Christian foundation, even if they themselves were not Christians.

As for the Enlightenment starting the Reformation, perhaps you are thinking of the Renaissance? The Enlightenment didn't start until Locke's time. And the Renaissance didn't start the Reformation. The Renaissance was inherently focused on the ancients and secular while the Reformation was focused on the Bible and religious. There were some notable exceptions in people (Erasmus) and methods (e.g. textual interpretation), but the movements were completely opposed.

Although ancient Greece and Rome did not have liberal democracies, they did start the path towards them by introducing some basic ideas. These ideas were re-examined during the Enlightenment period when centuries of Church rule began to wane. Christianity witnessed a dramatic increase in power around the fourth century (when it was made the official religion of Rome by emperor Constantine). That is when Christianity dominated all the religions in the area and spread to rule pretty much all of Europe. Christianity had siezed control completely by the turn of the millenium, so if Christianity really did provide the foundations for liberal democracy (instead of just be interpreted to suppor them) then why didn't any form sooner?

See previous posts. In short, Catholicism (which is based on a hierarchical system opposed to liberalism and democracy) got in the way.

Also, I have noticed nowhere in the Bible where the laws of God coincide or even control the laws of mankind. The laws of the Bible place obedience to God over all else, without providing any rationale besides "God is right because this book which he dictated the contense of says he is right." (circular logic for those who didn't notice) Even then, in the Bible God seems to go against his own rules time and time again. But I digress.

The Bible does spend plenty of time talking about the laws of man being in line with the laws of God, particularly in the Old Testament. The rules for a king are listed in Deuteronomy 17, and they state that the king must keep a scroll of the Law with him to study and model his reign on.

The laws of humanism were developed during this time period, correct? Humanism does everything you describe of a liberal democracy. It was also developed during the Enlightement time period. Perhaps you have caught hold of a coincidence of the Reformation and gave it credit for what humanism and (to a degree) romanticism did. Humanism and romanticism stressed human potential and the value of human life. These combined with the philosophy pushed forward by John Locke and philosophers like him added the ideas of social contract, separation of powers, etcetera. Meanwhile, the premier philosopher of the age who asserted that humans were naturally evil (Hobbes) was a supporter of monarchy, so it seems to me that he and the Church, which both opperated under the idea that humans are innately evil, would have wanted tighter control to keep that evil in line, much as it had for centuries.

How does humanism provide for liberal democracy? The French Revolution was based on humanism and romanticism, and it degenerated into slaughter.

For Hobbes, religion came second. He argued from an evil view of humanity, but he didn't have the worth of people, so his government became a monster. The Reformation recognized that people are evil, but they also contain a worth given to them by God. Without both, Liberalism doesn't work.

Liberal democracy, like the abolition of slavery, the continuation of slavery, dictatorships, theocracies, discrimination, anti-discriminatory feeling, etcetera recieved its support in terms of religion from interpretations of specific parts of Christianity, but not from a Christian foundation.

People have used the Bible to support just about everything. That doesn't mean that the Bible supported everything. If I looked hard enough, I'm sure that I could find quotes in Marx to support capitalism. That doesn't mean that he did.

I understand that Christianity probably affected the emergence of liberal democracy. But why fundamentalist Christianity? That is a specific type, almost a sect in its own right, and did not really emerge until after liberal democracies already existed. I don't see how fundamentalists affected history but a group such as, say, the Episcopalians, did not.

Because of fundamentalist christianity.

I think that we're differing in our definition of fundamentalist Christianity. What I am calling that didn't emerge until at least the Reformation.

Robbopolis, you base you thesis on the idea that since the West was Christian at the time, that Christianity was the sole cause of liberal democracy/ the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment is remarkable for its rebellion against contemporary Christian ideals, such as the union of church and state, the use of the bible as the source of knowledge for the universe, and using the bible as a code of laws. Otherwise, Sunday church would be compulsatory in a liberal democracy.

The Enlightenment finds its sources in an empiracal investigation of the world, something that Christianity at the time was against. Liberal Democracy was born out of the fruits of philosophers attempting to come up with a rational system of government, who in turn where influenced by the transformation of the world from a religious one to a rational, scientific one. They were far more influenced by scientific discoveries than Christian theology. Christianity had an influence, of course, but it doesn't nearly deserve the attention you're giving it, and to call it the prime source of the development of democracy is a blatant fallacy.

I am arguing that fundamentalist Christianity and the Enlightenment were diametrically opposed. I do recognize the contributions that Locke and others made, but I am arguing that the political ideas of that movement did not correspond with a deistic/atheistic system.

but I am arguing that the political ideas of that movement did not correspond with a deistic/atheistic system.

They correspond less with a Christian one.


EDIT: In case you didn't notice, but the Enlightenment had comparatively little to do with religion. Hence, seperation of church and state.

That they did. However, none of New England that was founded by the Puritans was a liberal democracy or anything remotely close until after they no longer had power. And once again, I point to Rhode Island. First liberal democracy in New England, founded by people the Puritans kicked out.

Eh, the Puritans were pretty democratic, at least compared to England. What they did was take the job that members of the charter (board of directors, basically) had and gave them to all freemen. I forget what exactly defined a "freeman," but it was liberal for the time. And Rhode Island was more tolerant, but I wouldn't call it more democratic necessarily.

Of course, this liberal democracy would also hang you if your neighbors said you were a witch. But everyone voted to hang you, and that's the important thing.

One: You are ignoring the fact that during Renaissance, when the absolute power of the Church had been broken (But before the Reformation) the classic ideas were once again rediscovered with a vengeance (Many of which influenced the Reformation in the first place. THAT event didn't suddenly spring up out of nowhere after all). Two: I agree that Christianity had a profound influence upon the events that shaped what would become liberal democracy, but I would not call it the foundation as you do, rather I am trying to show that MANY ideas blended in together to create Western liberal democracy (Because you also ignore the Eastern half of the planet).

Renaissance vs. Reformation is covered in another post, so I won't go there.

Where did the eastern half (by which I'm assuming you mean Asia) have any effect? I'm aware of the trade going on at the time, but I don't see how there was any exchange of philosophy/political theory (other than getting the ancient texts from the Muslim Middle East).

But I agree, ideas developed in times of less religious fundamentalism (Renaissance, Enlightenment, Ancient Greece) are being attributed to times like the Reformation, which was certainly a step forward, but not so much.

Then why did men who advocated religious persecution (like Calvin and Rutherford) also advocate ideas very similar to liberal democracy?

I would think the humanistic philosophy of the Renaissance is the primary origin of liberal democracy, which then evolved through the Enlightenment and the rise of capitalism.

Then why did France (which accepted the Renaissance but ended up rejecting the Reformation) go through the Reign of Terror and the like while America did not?

While some of the people who were instrumental in starting the American Republic were deists (Jefferson and Franklin, etc.), the society as a whole was extremely Christian. The Great Awakening happened shortly before the revolution, providing a large Christian base in society. And the Founding Fathers were building on a Christian foundation, even if they themselves were not Christians.

As for the Enlightenment starting the Reformation, perhaps you are thinking of the Renaissance? The Enlightenment didn't start until Locke's time. And the Renaissance didn't start the Reformation. The Renaissance was inherently focused on the ancients and secular while the Reformation was focused on the Bible and religious. There were some notable exceptions in people (Erasmus) and methods (e.g. textual interpretation), but the movements were completely opposed.



...
...


How does humanism provide for liberal democracy? The French Revolution was based on humanism and romanticism, and it degenerated into slaughter.

For Hobbes, religion came second. He argued from an evil view of humanity, but he didn't have the worth of people, so his government became a monster. The Reformation recognized that people are evil, but they also contain a worth given to them by God. Without both, Liberalism doesn't work.


...


I really don't think so, they were greatly influenced by Locke and Smith, neither of which are fundamentalists. Liberal, and Puritan, just don't go along.

Again, more nitpicking, but Locke is actually a "pre-Enlightenment" thinker. And the Renaissance and Reformation were linked together very strongly, perhaps you'd like to read some European history?

The French Revolution was based more on Rousseau's ideas, which were not very popular in the Enlightenment.

Hobbes was not religious, but I suppose the way the Christians of his time treated him had a lot to do with his views actually.

It does. Read the OP.
Don't you think it's pretty arrogant of you to assume I didn't read it before I posted?

I did. You're wrong. Others have covered why.

Post a non-laughable thesis and I'll bother to respond in kind. Otherwise I'll just engage in my standard petty heckling. Enjoy!

Then why did France (which accepted the Renaissance but ended up rejecting the Reformation) go through the Reign of Terror and the like while America did not?

Rousseau/printing press.

Contrary to what your elementary school teacher may have told you, the Pilgrims did not found all of the New England colonies. Nor did New England constitute all of the original 13 states.

Hell, Penn was founded by Quakers.

I know that the Pilgrims did not found all of New England. They didn't even found all of Massachusetts. But new England was founded by Puritans, which were similar.

And yes, I know that that only covers 4 of the original 13 colonies. But I think that we should look at the effects of the Great Awakening in the mid-18th that was in all of the colonies.

Then why did men who advocated religious persecution (like Calvin and Rutherford) also advocate ideas very similar to liberal democracy?

Yeah, because predestination is a very democratic concept.

My sarcasm nonwithstanding, as I learned in statistics, correlation does not prove correspondence.

I know that the Pilgrims did not found all of New England. They didn't even found all of Massachusetts. But new England was founded by Puritans, which were similar.

And yes, I know that that only covers 4 of the original 13 colonies. But I think that we should look at the effects of the Great Awakening in the mid-18th that was in all of the colonies.

Once again, New England only became home to liberal democracies in the absence of the Puritans. Also, Rhode Island, part of New England, was founded by people the Puritans had kicked out.

I understand that Christianity probably affected the emergence of liberal democracy. But why fundamentalist Christianity? That is a specific type, almost a sect in its own right, and did not really emerge until after liberal democracies already existed. I don't see how fundamentalists affected history but a group such as, say, the Episcopalians, did not.

I'm applying the term to a group that existed before the term originated. I know that's bad historical practice, but it does seem to fit. Many groups from the 17th and 18th centuries, like the Puritans, held similar beliefs to modern fundamentalist Christians.

And Rhode Island was more tolerant, but I wouldn't call it more democratic necessarily.

Jews could vote in Rhode Island, but not elsewhere. Seems more democratic to me.

They correspond less with a Christian one.

I disagree, which is the whole point of this thread.

EDIT: In case you didn't notice, but the Enlightenment had comparatively little to do with religion. Hence, seperation of church and state.

Yeah, I know. That's the point. Although we can see some elements of the church/state separation in some religious writers, like Calvin and Rutherford.

Then why did men who advocated religious persecution (like Calvin and Rutherford) also advocate ideas very similar to liberal democracy?

By the way, who's Rutherford?

Calvinism =/ Liberal Democracy

a. The major reason that some of Calvin's ideas seem similar to those of a liberal democracy is because he opposed the RCC's control system, where the Pope (a single person obviously) was in charge. However, he is certainly not the only person to favor a more democratic system, and the first people to do so were the Ancient Greeks.

b. Calvinism is the exact opposite of liberal, none of the founding fathers were Calvinists, or even close.


The rise of tolerance, from the Scientific Revolution and from secularism (which both helped lead to deism, although S.R. much more) helped bring about many of the ideas that are important in liberal democracy today, and tolerance in general is an important part of a liberal democracy.

I disagree, which is the whole point of this thread.



Yeah, I know. That's the point. Although we can see some elements of the church/state separation in some religious writers, like Calvin and Rutherford.

Seperation of church and state? Tell me, do you what Calvin wanted Geneva to be like?

Honestly, if you have any documents that prove that Calvin supported seperation of church and state, show em.

Again, more nitpicking, but Locke is actually a "pre-Enlightenment" thinker. And the Renaissance and Reformation were linked together very strongly, perhaps you'd like to read some European history?

I've read plenty or European history. Renaissance = secular (with exceptions). Reformation = religious. Lots of overlap in time, not much in substance.

The French Revolution was based more on Rousseau's ideas, which were not very popular in the Enlightenment.

I was under the impression that Rousseau's ideas grew out of the Enlightenment, even if he himself wasn't too popular.

Rousseau/printing press.

Don't you think that America had access to Rousseau prior to the revolution?

Yeah, because predestination is a very democratic concept.

My sarcasm nonwithstanding, as I learned in statistics, correlation does not prove correspondence.

It's buried, but it's there. Try reading book 4, chapter 20 of the Institutes. What you find might be surprising.

By the way, who's Rutherford?

Samuel Rutherford was a Scottish Presbyterian who wrote the anti-monarchical polemic during the English Civil War (1644). In it, he argued many ideas that look very similar to Locke (almost a half century later) such as government coming from a "secondary law of nature" and rebellion against a tyrannical government.

Calvinism =/ Liberal Democracy

a. The major reason that some of Calvin's ideas seem similar to those of a liberal democracy is because he opposed the RCC's control system, where the Pope (a single person obviously) was in charge. However, he is certainly not the only person to favor a more democratic system, and the first people to do so were the Ancient Greeks.

b. Calvinism is the exact opposite of liberal, none of the founding fathers were Calvinists, or even close.

While Calvin himself was not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, he did lay the foundation for it to happen in later centuries. He recognized the fundamental equality and worth of men as created in the image of God. Those ideas are necessary, as I mentioned in the OP, for Liberalism. The Enlightenment did provide a crude equality, but nothing in the way of worth, at least none that was compatible with the rest of the belief structure.

Christianity certainly influenced the development of liberal democracy(as we know it), but I would hesitate to call it a foundation. More like the Enlightenment/ Classical Heritage.

This is more accurate, the tension created by the Protestant Reformation opened the doors for The Enlightenment... And it was the philosophical principles developed in the enlightenment, which developed into the principles of liberal democracy... The Reformation had an important part to play, but I would not call it the singular foundation... Other factors utilized in the Reformation also played a part, including opening the common people to books, due to the invention of the printing press and the capacity to mass produce books, cheaper than before.

Seperation of church and state? Tell me, do you what Calvin wanted Geneva to be like?

Honestly, if you have any documents that prove that Calvin supported seperation of church and state, show em.

Institutes, book 4, chapter 20. He points to the church as being concerned with the soul while the government is concerned with the body, and so on.

I've read plenty or European history. Renaissance = secular (with exceptions). Reformation = religious. Lots of overlap in time, not much in substance.



I was under the impression that Rousseau's ideas grew out of the Enlightenment, even if he himself wasn't too popular.

Don't you think that America had access to Rousseau prior to the revolution?

The majority of people were effected very little by the Renaissance, it was mainly the richer people. To them, there was new art, new culture, new science, and much of it was quite religious. Ever heard of Neo-Platonism, and the combining of religious ideas from Christianity and Antiquity? All of that happened during the Renaissance. So basically, it was a more secular time than the past, but still very religious. Perhaps you have read Machiavelli's "The Prince". You will notice, that not once, does he directly criticize the RCC. This shows the influence of religion, even on a man who discouraged morals influencing policy. However, there was more criticism of the RCC during the Renaissance then before, and this, along with the development of the printing press, helped bring about the Reformation.

The Reformation, was brought about by this new questioning of authority, and by ideas being spread rapidly by the printing press. Luther's 95 Theses was able to spread across Europe only because of the printing press. As well, there were more educated people, and more people ready to take on the RCC. So the Reformation relied heavily on the Renaissance. Without the printing press, it would have failed. In reality, Johannes Gutenburg has more influence on liberal democracy than Christian fundamentals.

Rousseau opposed the major Enlightenment thinkers of the time, he was the oddball.

Yes, the American's had access to it, but they luckily didn't fall for it. You should read some of the things he wrote. Much of the French Revolution's insanity can be blamed on him.

Institutes, book 4, chapter 20. He points to the church as being concerned with the soul while the government is concerned with the body, and so on.

But he still enforced his morality on everyone through government. That's the opposite of seperating church and state.

But he still enforced his morality on everyone through government. That's the opposite of seperating church and state.

I'm not saying that he was consistent with what he was writing. And those ideas were still in their infancy. It would still be a while until those ideas matured into what we know today.

Okay, so elsewhere I made the comment that fundamentalist Christians (or at least what we would call that today) provided the foundations for liberal democracy. I recently wrote my philosophy thesis on such a topic, so I'll try to condense it here....

If you're looking for particular people that support these ideas, I suggest John Calvin and Samuel Rutherford.

But there's the problem of the fact that governments that really were founded on fundamentalist Christianity weren't really liberal democracies, even in the classical sense.

You make an appealing case for one that is inclined towards a favorable view of fundamentalist Christianity and liberal democracy, but the two have never really gone hand in hand. Any foundation that fundamentalism ever gave to liberal democracy only ever seems to have done so in the manner by which the land of the Canaanites provided the foundation for Israel.

I'm not saying that he was consistent with what he was writing. And those ideas were still in their infancy. It would still be a while until those ideas matured into what we know today.

You honestly cannot compare him to people that actually did support seperation of church and state. And honestly, at his time (the Reformation), there wasn't anyone advocating seperation. Some people may have wanted to have their religious hierchy, but no one advocated seperation in the Reformation. It all really hit full swing around the Enlightenment.

But he still enforced his morality on everyone through government. That's the opposite of seperating church and state.

And it bit him in the ass as well... At a later point Jean Chauvin was banished for a period by the city council of Geneva... Alot of people think he exercised alot of political power; but the truth is, he only exercised as much as the city council allowed him to.

The majority of people were effected very little by the Renaissance, it was mainly the richer people. To them, there was new art, new culture, new science, and much of it was quite religious. Ever heard of Neo-Platonism, and the combining of religious ideas from Christianity and Antiquity? All of that happened during the Renaissance. So basically, it was a more secular time than the past, but still very religious. Perhaps you have read Machiavelli's "The Prince". You will notice, that not once, does he directly criticize the RCC. This shows the influence of religion, even on a man who discouraged morals influencing policy. However, there was more criticism of the RCC during the Renaissance then before, and this, along with the development of the printing press, helped bring about the Reformation.

I know what Neo-Platonism was. It was an attempt to synthesize Plato and Christianity after Aquinas's attempt to synthesize Aristotle and Christianity failed.

The Prince actually makes a fine example of the anti-religious nature of the Renaissance. Machiavelli does criticize the RCC once near the end, but for strictly political purposes. He says that the church is keeping Italy from uniting like other countries were doing at the time. For the rest of it, he just ignores the church. He advocates things that were flat out immoral (go ahead and commit evil, that's what the people will do anyway). The book ends up getting banned by the church.

The Reformation, was brought about by this new questioning of authority, and by ideas being spread rapidly by the printing press. Luther's 95 Theses was able to spread across Europe only because of the printing press. As well, there were more educated people, and more people ready to take on the RCC. So the Reformation relied heavily on the Renaissance. Without the printing press, it would have failed. In reality, Johannes Gutenburg has more influence on liberal democracy than Christian fundamentals.

The ideas behind the Reformation could be seen many years before then in men like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, but the RCC stamped them out. I do recognize that there were many "happy accidents" that helped the Reformation get off the ground (printing press, political quarrels within Germany, Pope distracted by France), but the timing of it had little to do with the Renaissance.

Rousseau opposed the major Enlightenment thinkers of the time, he was the oddball.

Yes, the American's had access to it, but they luckily didn't fall for it. You should read some of the things he wrote. Much of the French Revolution's insanity can be blamed on him.

Yeah, I've read some of The Social Contract. Hard to get through it, it's so bad.

You honestly cannot compare him to people that actually did support seperation of church and state. And honestly, at his time (the Reformation), there wasn't anyone advocating seperation. Some people may have wanted to have their religious hierchy, but no one advocated seperation in the Reformation. It all really hit full swing around the Enlightenment.

Like I said, it took a while for those ideas to mature.

And don't say that it was the Enlightenment that did the maturing. I disagree completely.

Okay, I'm going to go take a food break. I might or might not be back, not sure yet.

Suffice it to say that my interpretation of history is most definitely in the minority. I'm aware of this. It's also kinda hard to argue this sort of thing coherently in an internet forum. Later y'all!

I know what Neo-Platonism was. It was an attempt to synthesize Plato and Christianity after Aquinas's attempt to synthesize Aristotle and Christianity failed.

The Prince actually makes a fine example of the anti-religious nature of the Renaissance. Machiavelli does criticize the RCC once near the end, but for strictly political purposes. He says that the church is keeping Italy from uniting like other countries were doing at the time. For the rest of it, he just ignores the church. He advocates things that were flat out immoral (go ahead and commit evil, that's what the people will do anyway). The book ends up getting banned by the church.



The ideas behind the Reformation could be seen many years before then in men like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus, but the RCC stamped them out. I do recognize that there were many "happy accidents" that helped the Reformation get off the ground (printing press, political quarrels within Germany, Pope distracted by France), but the timing of it had little to do with the Renaissance.



Yeah, I've read some of The Social Contract. Hard to get through it, it's so bad.

Machiavelli discusses other things far more than the RCC however. In fact, when he talks about ecclesiastical states, he says it is foolish to judge them to much, since they are ordained by God. My whole point was that religion was still huge in the Renaissance. Whether Machiavelli was religious or not, he knew how to not get burned at stake.

The Lollards and Hussites didn't fare too well for a reason. The climate of Europe simply wasn't right for it. After the Renaissance, there was more education, more criticism of authority, and the printing press (which is huge, you cannot, cannot downplay the importance of the printing press). All of these things, products of the Renaissance, helped bring about the Reformation. And the timing is actually very related, as the Renaissance shifted away to northern Europe, the Reformation occurred.

Suffice it to say that my interpretation of history is most definitely in the minority.
...
It's also kinda hard to argue this sort of thing coherently in an internet forum. Later y'all!
That's absolutely the worst reason not to do it. :p
Oh, and sigworthy!

I would say that liberalism is fundamentally dependent upon polycentric authority, which has occurred in a number of societies both famous and unknown. Polycentric authority, by its very nature, prevents a monopoly on jurisdiction that allows for abuse of this privilege and those subsequent to it (for it is easy to assign more privileges to oneself once one has a monopoly on deciding.)

I am a deist, and do not believe in revelation, but I believe that it was Catholicism that most contributed to liberalism. The success of Catholicism was the idea of rex sub lege; that the king, or any social authority, as a servant of God, had to execute his position in good faith in respect to the (subjective) particular rights of all, and that if he did not he should be removed. Hence the fact that kings could not impose taxes unilaterally but had to basically beg their councils for subsidy, the insistence on the observance of each group's rights and the constant haggling over them, with each side pushing in their respective direction, the availability for appeal to another social authority for redress (such as appealing to one's king or the church to redress the wrongs committed by a more proximate authority), and the independence of the Church that was a counterbalance to the temporal authority of kings.

Contrast this to the Orthodox rulers of Russia and Byzantium, or the Muslim rulers of the Ottoman Empire, in which the spiritual authority was a function of the government, and in which there was no social authority but rather nobles were functionaries of the state; these states were aliberal, and became stagnant and weak. It was this western liberal custom versus the arbitrary legislation of these despotisms that allowed the West to flourish both materially and in terms of liberty. And this liberal custom was weakened by the rise of Protestantism, in which religion both in Catholic and Protestant states became the decision of the state rather than something in the hands of an independent spiritual authorities, and in which the independent social authority of aristocrats was replaced by plutocrats serving as functionaries of the central state.

Western liberalism has its basis in religion, but not that of fundamentalism. Rather, it is through the polycentric spiritual and social authority that was the basis for Catholicism that allowed liberalism to flourish.

Western liberalism has its basis in religion, but not that of fundamentalism. Rather, it is through the polycentric spiritual and social authority that was the basis for Catholicism that allowed liberalism to flourish.

Catholicism was not really polycentric, authority flowed down from the Pope. The Pope would elect a lot of the important officials, who would pick their own for the more minor spots.

And really, Catholicism did the opposite for liberalism, it tried to destroy it. It was severely opposed to the French Revolution (although for understandable reasons) and it has always been a conservative force.

I'm applying the term to a group that existed before the term originated. I know that's bad historical practice

worse than bad, its fundamentally confused. fundamentalism is a very specific movement within christianity that arose in reaction to modernism and liberal christianity. there were no fundamentalist christians prior to the rise of modernism, nor could there be.

worse than bad, its fundamentally confused. fundamentalism is a very specific movement within christianity that arose in reaction to modernism and liberal christianity. there were no fundamentalist christians prior to the rise of modernism, nor could there be.

Exactly. This thesis makes no sense.

It's nice to talk about the philosophical underpinnings of liberal democracy and all that, but many people here seem to forget that there is a huge difference between the development of an idea (say, the invention of liberal democracy as a political theory) and the actual application of that idea in the real world (in this case, the transformation of so many countries into liberal democracies in the 20th century).

Frankly, it's much more interesting to talk about the relations of power that keep liberal democracy going in the real world than about the philosophical arguments that some people use to justify it.

According to fundamentalist Christianity...people are inherently evil.

I fail to see how this is even compatible with the idea of liberal democracy, let alone a foundation for it.

We would need no government at all if people were equally in the image of God because everyone knew how, where, and when to act right.

It is true the Bible says God made man in His own image but that is a long time since and, according to the same scriptures, mankind fell from the Glory of God (God's Image) very soon after being created.

Who is in the image and after the likeness of God, today? Absolutely nobody. Not even the Popes? Not. Because if they were so (immortal like God) they wouldn't die.

. . .

But here we have a big paradox:

How can mankind (imperfect and unjust) make sound provisions for a just form of government. Blind lead the blind?

Liberal Democracy may also sound like "The Power Of The People To Deceive Themselves And One-Another In Dignity".

Cool.

Even that, in most cases, goes without "In Dignity". :eek: :( :confused:

Catholicism was not really polycentric, authority flowed down from the Pope. The Pope would elect a lot of the important officials, who would pick their own for the more minor spots.

The pope, from the beginning, recognized the powers of kings as leaders of their people; that's how he managed to get them to convert to Catholicism. He wasn't just picking them freely and then having them obey him eagerly. Subsidiarity has always been an important aspect of Catholicism.

And really, Catholicism did the opposite for liberalism, it tried to destroy it. It was severely opposed to the French Revolution (although for understandable reasons) and it has always been a conservative force.

The French Revolution was the advancement of the absolutist principle, not liberalism. The French Republic centralized far more than the kings that preceded them ever did, and they brought the principle of absolutism to its fullest manifestation through war, conscription, fiat money and confiscation of wealth; that is why many revolutionaries celebrated Cardinal Richelieu. The Church did good by opposing that orgy of the Id, and by supporting its own power it did much to check the power of the other authorities it competed with. (The Jesuits were well-known for their advancement of tyrannicide, which the Third Estate condemned as they affirmed their support for the king in an absolutist motion in 1614 against other authorities.)