...to where we might be heading if we continue in the direction the Republicans and religious right are fighting taking us (i.e., back to power wedded to ideology). Where's the much-touted progress in heading backward to eight hundred year-old governing forms?)...Our modern history begins in the middle ages -- in Europe. By 'we', I mean those of us who live in liberal republics. It was the 'Power vs Ideology' struggle of the middle ages that laid the groundwork for our modern political theories. In Europe, there were two power centers -- the state, which controlled political power; and the church, which controlled ideology. In Asia, (including Byzantium), these things (power and ideology) were...consolidated in the state thus resulting in totalitarian regimes. Now, I'm not trying to say that the medieval kingdoms weren't autocratic, but the intellectual groundwork was in place for challenging the authority of the existing states when the time came. This is why the European Middle Ages are important if you want to understand where we came from.
from a comment on Historium written by Realm of Sovereigns...excellent.
2 comments:
I agree. Freedom of Religion is a joke in this country. Today, elected officials seem to only work for those who elect them. Not the whole country they should be serving. The strange thing is, one of the first nations to establish Freedom of Religion was the Mongol Empire, which people always relate to a barbarian country that massacred western civilization. A civilization that burned those that seemed even slightly suspicious and held religious dogma as the basis for science.
Scriptor said: "A civilization that burned those that seemed even slightly suspicious and held religious dogma as the basis for science." Ahh, yes, the burning times. I'm so glad we've had the Reformation and the Enlightenment since then; makes my life so much better. If memory serves, the Mongul invasion predated the burning times by several hundred years. But that's beside the point. You point out a basic truth that we all seem to have forgotten (by 'we', I mean society) -- that it is bad to substitute dogma for reason. We all know that it is bad to substitute religious dogma for reason, but we never stop to think why it is bad. The reason is not because it is religious, but because it is dogma. Dogma is the enemy of reason and if reason is banished, then we are slaves to dogma. I don't care what side of the political isle you are on. Try watching the coverage of a controversial issue -- any controversial issue. I would be willing to bet a small sum that most of the objections (from Republicans if a Democrat initiative, and from Democrats if a Republican initiative) will be based on some dogmatic principle that has no foundation in reason. This dogma will usually spring form party principle or from popular (and usually uninformed) opinion. You will find very few people actually sitting down and analyzing the pros and cons (by this, I mean real pros and cons, not those preordained by the accepted dogma on the subject). The substitution of dogma for reason in our public discourse is extremely dangerous for the simple reason that it obscures the truth. And we need the truth to make proper decisions (about our elected leaders, for example). If we don't have access to the truth, we are no better than slaves (very well-kept slaves, but slaves nonetheless) because those in power will be able to do whatever they want so long as they have the power to create or influence the creation of popular dogma.
I'm sorry if that's a little abstract, but Scriptor hit on a personal pet peeve of mine that I have given a lot of thought to over the past several years. If you want to get a more practical idea of what I am talking about, just pay attention to how we are told things. Phrases such as "experts say" are often the only reason we get to support a conclusion on something that is being given to the public. Often little or no detail is given about how these "experts" reached their conclusion. The American public is conditioned to believe anything an 'expert' says -- and no one stops to think that often 'experts' are no smarter than they are and are only experts because they are more familiar with the topic. Of course, if anyone did stop to think about that, they might then also realize that, given similar information, they might reach a different conclusion than the expert. Then people might start to extend the same reasoning to how they view statements by their leaders in Washington and that would be extremely dangerous for those who aspire to be autocrats. One of the reasons I started a weblog in the first place was to attempt to raise people's consciousness about such things.
Post a Comment