good and bad in history

[robin hood]

America has tended toward a faith which is far more evangelical than
the erudite and administrative religion of Europe. Europe in history
developed a centralized religion. Theology was far more specialized
and almost elitist.

In America it was all about the common man. That is what is meant
when people refer to America's gospel religion, "there you will find
what everyone needs, wild religion without any creeds."

As with so many areas of national experience, part of the American
ingenuity was to simplify religion, to blur the arcane distinctions of
theology, and to "bring heaven down to earth."

The frontier genius was to make faith a practical matter, make it
meaningful for the average person. Thus, they retained the parts of
religion that they found uplifting, the gospel of Jesus, the love of
faith and of family, it became basically a religion of the heart.

American literature is filled with the love-hate relationship for our
gospel religion. Abraham Lincoln's biting humor was well known.
Martin Luther King rebelled against the ignorance and provinciality of
his fundamentalist upbringing, Mark Twain both ridiculed, and also
loved, the spirit of gospel emotionalism and passion, the little rude
churches he knew so well. James Baldwin both loved and hated the petty
hypocrisies, mixed with hope and joys and consolation in the vibrant
little churches he grew up in. Of all his novels, especially one sees
this love-hate in

Go Tell It On The Mountain

Of course, the popes predicted all this would happen. And it did.

The localist heresy, the Americanist itch to make it relevant for the
common man. None of this would have happened if Americans had not
sought a new world, had not rebelled against the Kings and Popes and
Bishops of Europe.

America, in its history, was anti-authoritarian. Tocqueville and
others have commented on this. Tocqueville actually thought it was,
for the most part, a good thing.

[b***@dodo.com.au]

Post by robin hood
America has tended toward a faith which is far more evangelical than
the erudite and administrative religion of Europe. Europe in history
developed a centralized religion. Theology was far more specialized
and almost elitist.
In America it was all about the common man. That is what is meant
when people refer to America's gospel religion, "there you will find
what everyone needs, wild religion without any creeds."
As with so many areas of national experience, part of the American
ingenuity was to simplify religion, to blur the arcane distinctions of
theology, and to "bring heaven down to earth."
The frontier genius was to make faith a practical matter, make it
meaningful for the average person. Thus, they retained the parts of
religion that they found uplifting, the gospel of Jesus, the love of
faith and of family, it became basically a religion of the heart.
American literature is filled with the love-hate relationship for our
gospel religion. Abraham Lincoln's biting humor was well known.
Martin Luther King rebelled against the ignorance and provinciality of
his fundamentalist upbringing, Mark Twain both ridiculed, and also
loved, the spirit of gospel emotionalism and passion, the little rude
churches he knew so well. James Baldwin both loved and hated the petty
hypocrisies, mixed with hope and joys and consolation in the vibrant
little churches he grew up in. Of all his novels, especially one sees
this love-hate in
Go Tell It On The Mountain
Of course, the popes predicted all this would happen. And it did.
The localist heresy, the Americanist itch to make it relevant for the
common man. None of this would have happened if Americans had not
sought a new world, had not rebelled against the Kings and Popes and
Bishops of Europe.
America, in its history, was anti-authoritarian. Tocqueville and
others have commented on this. Tocqueville actually thought it was,
for the most part, a good thing.

The American dream is "freedom", with or without religion. As it
happens the earliest settlers were religious, and even as recently as
World War II, most Americans would have had some Biblical knowledge.
But not any more. Just today 32 young people were killed in a school
by a single gun-man, one of many such slaughters. The nation which
boasts the highest Christian percentage in the West also has the
highest Western imprisonment rate. There is more economic inequality
in the USA than in any other Western nation. I sometimes wonder how
much longer the lowest paid workers will accept their lot, in all
honesty.

Freedom is a two edged sword. It would be better if it was "Truth".

"Freedom" in the end means the ability to do anything one wants, even
if that impinges on the rights and well being of other people.
Americans have the highest energy consumption on the planet (with us
Australians not far behind unfortunately). This impinges on global
warming, has been used to control other countries, and has led to wars
and social problems elsewhere at times.

The Catholic Church, despite all it's faults, tries to discern
"Truth". This may at times even mean the curtailment of freedom, for
is something is "true", then to go against it is "false" or if you
like, of the devil.

I remember picking up a Canadian one time while driving a cab. We got
to talking about the US and he made the comment, "The Americans are a
people apart. They've got the absolute best ... and the absolute
worst".

[robin hood]

Much to chew on there, bobcrowe.

The very best .... and the very worst.

Americans are, and have been, their own worst enemy. (I am American
myself).

The roots of western christianity, of course, go deep into the
socalled Ages of Faith, medieval and before. And face it, that means
centuries of Catholic faith. All was easier then, everyone was
expected to think alike, nor were they encouraged to challenge the
accepted creeds, the rulings of those who knew better. (Lords and
kings, bishops and popes.)

Yet out of those stern ages, tremendous good has come. Northern
Europe was a
Dark continent, unwashed, illiterate, and essentially barbarian
tribesmen, barely tamed for cooperative labor.

Nietsche has railed against the harsh cruelties of the Church, as it
civilized the subject peoples.

But in reality, the kings and popes accomplished a laudable project
--- forcing crude barbarians to submit to the demands of agriculture,
tilling the soil, refraining from violence and maurauding, refraining
from plunder and rapine.

In place of FREEDOM, they got the Bible, (however it was actually
several hundred years before they could read and write). The medieval
period was a transition time, and the Kings and Popes did a worthy
endeavor, in "imposing" law and order, agriculture and culture --- and
eventually there emerged the civilization of the Occident.

It is true that America has had a tendency to water down the
theological and doctrinal side. It was part of the aftermath of our
frontier heritage. There was, at the beginning, a rather anti-
Catholic fear or nervousness. Perhaps it was cultural memory, but in
England, truth be told, it was far more persecution by the King, and
by his anglican (Canterbury) Establishment ...... than it was by
Catholic authoritarianism.

The Stuart dynasty was all about the Divine Right of Kings.

The common people, and democracy, were thoroughly distrusted. (Yes,
similar to the Catholic nations of Europe, in those days.) Lately,
there have been several truly inspired leaders in the Vatican. Pope
Leo XIII, Good Pope John XXIII, and yes, I would say the current
pontiff as well. There is not at all as much of the anti-democratic
fear of populist impulse of bygone eras.

Critics would say that only "puritan" America came up with religious
liberty. Amendment One --- Freedom of Conscience. Yes, that may be
true but not totally. The French Revolution slaughtered priests and
nobility, but after that bloody time, Napoleon backtracked on
religious freedom, and reinstituted ties with Vatican. his Concordat
with the Pope.

Ireland has had a genuine and official protection by law of Religious
Freedom for all.

Scarcely any other Catholic nation, so far, has official protection of
freedom of conscience. Only the United States ..... with our first
Amendment, has set the example for the world.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by robin hood
Much to chew on there, bobcrowe.

So why didn't you chew before swallowing?

Post by robin hood
The very best .... and the very worst.
Americans are, and have been, their own worst enemy. (I am American
myself).

Just as you are yourself a good example of how to be our worst enemy.

Post by robin hood
The roots of western christianity, of course, go deep into the
socalled Ages of Faith, medieval and before. And face it, that means
centuries of Catholic faith. All was easier then, everyone was
expected to think alike,

You haven't read very many Scholastics, have you? They most certainly
did NOT "all think alike". Your statement here only shows that you do
not have a clue what you are writing about.

Post by robin hood
nor were they encouraged to challenge the accepted creeds, the
rulings of those who knew better. (Lords and kings, bishops and
popes.)

Again, this shows you have neither read the Scholastics, nor
understood the Ecumenical Councils. There was a lot of challenge to
the "accepted creeds".

Post by robin hood
Yet out of those stern ages, tremendous good has come.

So why do you recognize only the smallest fraction of that
"tremendous good"?

Post by robin hood
Northern Europe was a Dark continent, unwashed, illiterate, and
essentially barbarian tribesmen, barely tamed for cooperative labor.
Nietsche has railed against the harsh cruelties of the Church, as it
civilized the subject peoples.

Ironic, considering what a cruel man Nietsche[sp?] was himself,
shocking even his fellow anti-semitic Germans with his anti-semitism.

Post by robin hood
But in reality, the kings and popes accomplished a laudable project
--- forcing crude barbarians to submit to the demands of agriculture,
tilling the soil, refraining from violence and maurauding, refraining
from plunder and rapine.

Some were this laudable. But even your 'history' here is severely
unhistorical. Most of the European 'barbarians' were already tilling
the soil. What was new was the scale and the method of
distribution. Nor did they give up violence. Rather, they learned to
submit it to the control of the state, using violence more to defend
against other barbarians rather than to plunder for themselves.

But both these were Roman ideas rather than specifically Christian.

Post by robin hood
In place of FREEDOM, they got the Bible, (however it was actually
several hundred years before they could read and write).

This is yet another example of how careless your history is. They
didn't _need_ to read and write; they heard it read for them in
Church. All they needed was to show up. This was early enough that the
Romanized population still understood it when read in Latin.

Post by robin hood
The medieval period was a transition time, and the Kings and Popes
did a worthy endeavor, in "imposing" law and order, agriculture and
culture

And they would not have done this if not consistently urged to it by
the Church.

Post by robin hood
--- and eventually there emerged the civilization of the
Occident.

More anti-historical nonsense. The 'Occident' has been civilized since
long before this 'eventual emergence' you refer to.

Post by robin hood
It is true that America has had a tendency to water down the
theological and doctrinal side.

Europe since the French Revolution does this far more than we do.

Post by robin hood
It was part of the aftermath of our frontier heritage.

Rash speculation without a shred of supporting evidence.

Post by robin hood
There was, at the beginning, a rather anti- Catholic fear or
nervousness.

"At the beginning"? You can still see it today in the raving
(particularly popular among Baptists) against 'Popery' or against
"masses" or against "images", which they insist on calling 'idols'.

It is the same irrational hatred.

Post by robin hood
Perhaps it was cultural memory, but in England, truth be told, it was
far more persecution by the King, and by his anglican (Canterbury)
Establishment ...... than it was by Catholic authoritarianism.

This is more nonsense.

Post by robin hood
The Stuart dynasty was all about the Divine Right of Kings.

No, that is not what the Stuart dynasty was "all about". After all: if
it was " all about the Divine Right of Kings", how did the dynasty
manage to set aside the divine right of the previous dynasty of Kings
of England to become the dynasty not just of Scotland, but of England
also? For that matter, how did the Stuarts become associated with
opposition to the House of Hanover? And how did the British Parliament
extend its power under the Stuarts?

No, the Stuart Dynasty was no more strongly devoted to the Divine
Right of Kings than any other dynasty of about that time. And other
Dynasties were more strongly devoted.

Post by robin hood
The common people, and democracy, were thoroughly distrusted.

They still are. That is why _no_ modern 'democracy' uses direct
representation. allowing only elected representatives to vote on
bills. That is why the monied classes seize the lion's share of power
in a 'domocracy' by handicapping and sabotaging campaign finance
reform laws.

Post by robin hood
(Yes, similar to the Catholic nations of Europe, in those days.)
Lately, there have been several truly inspired leaders in the
Vatican. Pope Leo XIII, Good Pope John XXIII, and yes, I would say
the current pontiff as well. There is not at all as much of the
anti-democratic fear of populist impulse of bygone eras.
Critics would say that only "puritan" America came up with religious
liberty.

But this too would be unhistorical and simply wrong. They _didn't_
come up with "religious liberty" until the puritan influence had been
bridled. And there _was_ religious liberty under certain Roman
Emperors, too. So in both these ways, these 'critics' would be simply
wrong.

Post by robin hood
Amendment One --- Freedom of Conscience. Yes, that may be
true but not totally. The French Revolution slaughtered priests and
nobility, but after that bloody time, Napoleon backtracked on
religious freedom, and reinstituted ties with Vatican. his Concordat
with the Pope.

Yet more gross distortion of history. In particular, I am suspicious
of why you talk about "backtracking on religious freedom" _but after_
slauthering priests. It is as if you thought that this gross violation
of human rights, slaughtering priests, was an act of religious
freedom!

Post by robin hood
Ireland has had a genuine and official protection by law of Religious
Freedom for all.

Only in very recent years, i.e., since Independence.

Post by robin hood
Scarcely any other Catholic nation,

What "Catholic nations"? Are you considering, for example, Spain or
France "a Catholic nation"? Even with their toleration for abortion?
And why are you confusing "freedom of religion" with "freedom of
conscience"?

Post by robin hood
so far, has official protection of freedom of conscience.

Again: why are you confusing "freedom of religion" with "freedom of
conscience"? Perhaps because you are unaware that the Stalin
Constitution promised the one, but not the other?

Post by robin hood
Only the United States ..... with our first Amendment, has set the
example for the world.

But America was free to do this only because _unlike_ Serbia and
Russia, it has never been locked in a life-or-death struggle with
Islam. And if we mishandle the current conflict badly enough, we too
will soon be locked in such a struggle. Then, the First Amemdment will
be tossed aside just as the Divine Right of Kings was.

Before you dismiss this as wild speculation, consider the many ways in
which other First Amendment freedoms have been attacked and eroded by
the "Patriot Act", not to mention other reactions to 9-11.

After all, when you consider how much freedom we have already lost in
the wake of a _single_ attack, it should be easy to see how radical
the loss will be once locked in a life-or-death struggle.

[robin hood]

"Oh look at all the lonely people ...."

One of the joys of growing older is seeng how far you've come, and
th[e consolation of the circle of life, the cyclical resolution of the
trials that once stymied you.

There is a reassurance, knowing that the old-timers, lo and behold,
predicted so much of it, unwittingly perhaps, almost as if they could
see the future.

The fanatacism of my own dissenting roots, those helter skelter
groupings of low-church, or populist Christianity that sprung up out
of nowhere, their only doctrine the Word of God, and they stood, bold-
like, lions against the Kings and Popes.

The mighty and the powerful demanded everyone must think alike.
Everyone must pass their litmus test, their Creeds, ruled on by the
bishops. Their ecclesiastical hierarchy. The religious intelligentsia.

It was the lowly who simplified it, "Just give me the Bible."

All that mattered was relational christianity. All that mattered was
the personalism of the simple Gospel.

The erudite, the elites, they had the answers. It was the lowly who
transformed the West. The experts of Christianity scorned the camp
meetings, the brush arbor, the slavery outpourings, the revivals that
swept across the South, across the frontier.

There you will find what every man needs
Wild religion without any creeds.

America has always been cursed in this regards to populist religion,
gospel emotionalism, a religion of the heart, not enough education or
theology. Europe saw how, almost heathen, the American faith
experience ressembled.

Somehow, what is so complicated?

In the words of the old Huguenot, "Henri Amiel:

Life is short and we have never too much time for gladdening the
hearts of those who are travelling the dark journey with us. Oh be
swift to love, make haste to be kind.