I've been listening to a course about European history and the development of Western Civilization. It is quite eye-opening how many parallels exist between events from centuries ago and those of today's age. In the time between the Roman Empire and World War I there was no shortage of princes, kings, empires and the privileged classes that seemingly always surround those in power. The idea of "the divine right of kings" was accepted on faith, somewhat through theological arguments but I think mostly it was due to the simple fact that people who argue with those in power tend to lead much shorter lives (can we say, gaining an up close perspective with the business ends of blades and/or ropes), so let's call that pragmatism which over time became a matter of custom. It was just the way things were.
When Thomas Hobbes published Leviathan he set the world to thinking about new ways to think about the relationship between the state and the individual, like the civil society or the social contract.
So when the reform movement began it was easy to divide the groups into those who fought for change (liberals) and those who defended the status-quo (conservatives).
While it is informative to review the list of ideas resisted by conservatives, I will leave that for another article. I want to focus on John Calvin and Geneva. Calvin was one of the reformers who wanted to return to a simpler church, one that focused on the Bible more so than centuries of doctrine and orthodoxy. Some of the attitudes were that the poor were that way due to some moral failing, and thus shouldn't complain but work to be more pious instead because they must be being punished by God. Calvin believed that the power of the State was needed to insure people would not sin and instituted a rigid set of policies of private behavior along with system of informers to make sure that no sin went undiscovered nor unpunished regardless how small or venial. Another view was that since everyone's fate was predestined, one should not resist whatever plight might befall but rather embrace it as the will of God. Both attitudes meant it became easy if not acceptable to dismiss the poor as 'not my problem' or 'they must be lazy'. Calvin's theology was strong enough to being an entire city under his influence, stifling dissent even to the point of burning critics like Servetus at the stake for heresy with very little room for tolerance(*).
That brings me to the modern day and political debates on reformist ideas like minimum wage, healthcare, food stamps, immigration, spending policies, and the like. In the comment section of some article not unlike one about the Texas healthcare system and its poorest citizens, one commenter bravely described her 3 bouts with cancer, not being able to hold down a job, barely being able to afford cancer treatments - and the someone had the gall to reply with 'get a job!'. Yes that person may be trolling but the sentiment seems to be a common one these days and it really exposes an attitude by a large number of people who refuse to emphasize with others. Maybe they are so overwhelmed by stories of the downtrodden that they've become convinced that the world can't be that bad and evidence otherwise must be either hoaxes or from swindlers gaming the system. The danger with this new attitude is that it reveals a callous nature, if not outright selfishness.
Here we come full circle, and the question of the day: have the beliefs of Calvin instituted in Geneva been reconstituted in America?
(*) From the John Calvin Wikipedia article,
Following the execution of Servetus, a close associate of Calvin, Sebastian Castellio, broke with him on the issue of the treatment of heretics. In Castellio's Treatise on Heretics (1554), he argued for a focus on Christ's moral teachings in place of the vanity of theology,[97] and he afterward developed a theory of tolerance based on biblical principles.[98]
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment