The World Didn't End... - by Queue
CCCToad on 30/5/2011 at 00:28
Thats only partially true. A lot of the more famous examples, such as the "divine right of kings" originate not from Religious authorities but from more secular sources. That particular doctrine was never officially sponsored by the church, but instead was thought up by a member of the 16th century French parliament in order to prop up the elite's philosophical justification for how they acted. Basically the David Brooks of his time.
demagogue on 30/5/2011 at 02:17
I didn't go into detail, but that's part of Weber's theory too.
He distinguished a spectrum from priests that are kings, priests that legitimate kings, kings that only need nominal religious confirmation, and secular kings that set religious law or become the high priest, then dozens of variations along that whole spectrum. He actually spent a lot of time on the secular end of the spectrum, the Shogunate, some Pharaohs, the Caesar model, Turkish & English models where secular kings were setting religious law or its agenda... His point was that while the peasants in Japan & Caesarian Rome & Renaissance-era England and Turkey were just as religious as anywhere else, their social organization was different and that's what led to the reciprocal relationship being so secular-driven, where secular kings or generals were actually setting religious law or becoming high priests or whatever. His main punchline was just that there was always a reciprocal relationship, but which side (secular kings & generals vs religious engaged priests or disengaged monks) had prominence & how they managed it was very different across societies.
Xorak on 30/5/2011 at 04:52
The divine right of kings could never be accepted by the Church because it was specifically invented to weaken the power of the Church. The French kings were using that idea to merge the secular institutions with the religious and thus eliminate the entire jurisdiction of the Church over the people.
I'm not sure I get though the differences between Weber's secular leaders and religious leaders. To me, the Pharoahs and Caesarean rulers and the English monarchs before parliament were religious-based and they were writing secular law--not secular leaders writing religious laws. That is, if there's even a real difference between the two.
As examples: in Rome, the politicians were the augurs and were responsible for ascertaining and carrying out the will of the gods. In Anglican England (as in all of Europe,) the people were forced to follow the religion of each separate leader, so that the governmental structure and code of laws might change every time a new king took office.
Azaran on 30/5/2011 at 05:17
When the Roman empire became exclusively Christian, and all other religions were banned (under Theodosius 1, ca. 380-390 AD), the law codes were changed and religious laws were enacted making non-Christian religions illegal: "
IT IS Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans.....The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment" ((
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Theodosian-Code.html) Theodosian Code)
Pagan Rome, which was more secular, rarely interfered with its subjects' religious beliefs, aside from a few sporadic persecutions against Christians and Manicheans. When the Church came to power, it began to demand more and more control over the state, ultimately decreeing that other religions be made illegal, and demanding the destruction of temples, and synagogues, and the forced conversion of non Christians and Heretics. In late Rome and Byzantium, it was indeed the Church that pulled the strings of power.
demagogue on 30/5/2011 at 13:24
Quote Posted by Xorak
To me, the Pharoahs and Caesarean rulers and the English monarchs before parliament were religious-based and they were writing secular law--not secular leaders writing religious laws. That is, if there's even a real difference between the two.
I'm just going by the book I've been reading, but Weber's response is, first there's never a clean separation (so you're confirming his main thesis; the whole point is religion & politics are bound together), but second that you are largely what your upbringing and training are. Especially he looks at the role of seminaries & going through the church hierarchy. What made these guys special (what he called the "Caesaro-papists") is that they didn't get trained through seminaries or a church hierarchy or monastic order, but usually through secular institutions (i.e., the army). Caesar didn't grow up in a seminary but in the army, took over Rome through military victory not coming up through the priesthood, then was declared high priest later to legitimate himself under Roman law. Henry VIII also didn't go through seminary or the church hierarchy but declared himself head of the Church of England as part of separating it from the Catholic hierarchy. So they was secular by training and not beholden to a seminary or church hierarchy in the way institutional priests were, and the "religious-based" part is something they did largely by fiat. Of course they're still religious leaders; that's why they're still "papists" in his model. But he's looking at the real sociology going on under the surface.
CCCToad on 9/6/2011 at 19:56
Well, the world WILL end in 2012.
I'm going to go on record as predicting that Texas Governor Rick Perry will be the Republican Nominee in 2012, and he will most likely win. I say this not because he's actually the strongest candidate, but because its been decided in advance by those who actually decide such things that they want to ditch Romney and put Perry in his place.
fett on 9/6/2011 at 22:55
I'm going to go on record as saying you're an asshat.
SubJeff on 9/6/2011 at 23:10
Pretty sure I can second that.
fett on 10/6/2011 at 03:54
Conversely, never admitting to either, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is the exact same thing.
