When Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, the Roman Catholic Church answered the Protestant Reformation it had caused, by declaring, in 1555, "cuius regio, eius religio," Latin for "whose realm, his religion."
A major concession for the Roman Catholic Church-- the last vestige of the fallen Roman Empire, still trying to claim some degree of influence over all territories in Europe-- this compromise gave legitimacy to one particular view of Christianity alternative to Catholicism-- Lutheranism-- by decreeing that any Lutheran could leave the Holy Roman Empire peacefully, rather than be burned at the stake as had been done in the past century.
The principle did not, however, legitimize other views of Christianity, such as Calvinism in England and France, nor the Remonstrants in the Netherlands. A dozen years later, the Eighty Years War began between the Netherlands and Spain (a stronghold of the Roman Catholic Church). Fifty years into that war, Bohemia revolted, and the Thirty Years War began.
The Dutch had a strong navy, but, at this point, the Roman Catholic Church might have retained hope of reuniting Europe in a Roman Empire someday. Then, Sweden revolted. Then, France declared war against Spain. Then Portugal, which had come under the power of Spain's King 60 years before when her king died without an heir to the throne, revolted and put in her own royalty again.
These wars culminated when Spain and the Roman Catholic Church gave up trying to maintain dominant influence throughout Europe, and the principle "whose realm, his religion" was broadened into the Peace of Westphalia, which ceded sovereignty to each of the respective royalties of the various feudal kingdoms in Europe.
Included in this sovereignty, was a distinction in religious worship between public and private; while the royalty of each state might endorse Catholicism, Lutheranism, or Calvinism publicly, private communal worship of minority Christian faiths became tolerated. This freedom could be considered a precedent of the freedom of conscience outlined by William Penn in his Frame of Government of Pennsylvania and later in the United States Bill of Rights.
A more generous interpretation of this concept, could hold it to be the beginning of the view that property ownership and material prosperity enjoin moral authority; "whose realm, his religion" taken to mean literally that property causes authority.
In this way, the subsequent economic theory of capitalism, the megacorporation, and the balance of power in international relations, can be anticipated.
Property causation of authority, could also anticipate naturalism and its concept of trait fitness (evolutionary theory beginning in 1859). Indeed, that "automatic choice" corresponds to the Lutheran & Calvinist theory of predestination, reaffirms such an interpretation of "natural selection."
I believe it to be the responsibility of the government of a society to impose on its people some set of minimal laws to maintain civic trust and safety; otherwise, temptation and poverty damage the people and threaten the society's existence.
Morality is the basis of the law; therefore, a government also has a responsibility to maintain a system of morality among the people it governs. In absence of morality, the law is viewed as a tool rather than an end.
"Whose realm, his religion" is a cowardly principle for those in charge of governing a society to decree; it rejects compassion; it presents the people as different irreconcilably; it rejects government; it belittles civility.
Ought the concept of Westphalian sovereignty be reviewed, or abandoned?
What limits ought to be placed on the freedom of conscience, in a society?
"Whose realm, his religion" is a cowardly principle for those in charge of governing a society to decree; it rejects compassion; it presents the people as different irreconcilably; it rejects government; it belittles civility.
Of course it's cowardly; it's a way to avoid conflict. In the middle of the Thirty Years' War a sudden outbreak of cowardice is the best possible thing that could happen to people.
A major concession for the Roman Catholic Church-- the last vestige of the fallen Roman Empire, still trying to claim some degree of influence over all territories in Europe-- this compromise gave legitimacy to one particular view of Christianity alternative to Catholicism-- Lutheranism-- by decreeing that any Lutheran could leave the Holy Roman Empire peacefully, rather than be burned at the stake as had been done in the past century.
This,
These wars culminated when Spain and the Roman Catholic Church gave up trying to maintain dominant influence throughout Europe, and the principle "whose realm, his religion" was broadened into the Peace of Westphalia, which ceded sovereignty to each of the respective royalties of the various feudal kingdoms in Europe.
and this, are both examples of what might be called "putting the best face on things". The political reality was that in each case, the ruler had lost the power to control the ruled. Rather than making a fuss, trying to continue the facade of rule, and making it blatantly obvious to all that their power had failed, in each case the former ruler chose to say, "I magnanimously choose to set you free! Aren't you grateful?" In other words, none of this is remarkable in the very slightest. They might have been firsts for Europe as far as Christianity's control over nation-states, but they certainly weren't historical firsts.
A more generous interpretation of this concept, could hold it to be the beginning of the view that property ownership and material prosperity enjoin moral authority; "whose realm, his religion" taken to mean literally that property causes authority.
That's a bit of a stretch, I think. Are you just on your hobbyhorse?
Property causation of authority, could also anticipate naturalism and its concept of trait fitness (evolutionary theory beginning in 1859). Indeed, that "automatic choice" corresponds to the Lutheran & Calvinist theory of predestination, reaffirms such an interpretation of "natural selection."
Again, I think you're really stretching to unify things into a causal framework that not only probably doesn't exist, it doesn't *need* to exist. Why do you feel it's so important that all these things tie together? Humans aren't entirely rational beings and not all ideas in history flow logically in orderly fashion down a single track of development like ducks in a row. Can't we allow for the occasional flash of creative inspiration?
I believe it to be the responsibility of the government of a society to impose on its people some set of minimal laws to maintain civic trust and safety; otherwise, temptation and poverty damage the people and threaten the society's existence.
What does this even have to do with what you were talking about above??
"Whose realm, his religion" is a cowardly principle for those in charge of governing a society to decree; it rejects compassion; it presents the people as different irreconcilably; it rejects government; it belittles civility.
Well, yeah. But we're talking about the 16th century Catholic Church. Corruption and venality a specialty.
Ought the concept of Westphalian sovereignty be reviewed, or abandoned?
This is a non-question question. Unless you would like to propose an alternate framework by which the world might be organized? Look, I'm sorry to get so angry, but this can't be the way to do things here. Don't just spew 20 Wikipedia links at us and say "discuss among yourselves" and sit back to watch us all try to catch up with you, obediently following your intellectual trail of breadcrumbs. This forum isn't a classroom, it's a debate hall. So suggest an alternative or some course of action. Set the tone. Otherwise it's not much of a debate, is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_95_Theses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio
A major concession for the Roman Catholic Church-- the last vestige of the fallen Roman Empire, still trying to claim some degree of influence over all territories in Europe-- this compromise gave legitimacy to one particular view of Christianity alternative to Catholicism-- Lutheranism-- by decreeing that any Lutheran could leave the Holy Roman Empire peacefully, rather than be burned at the stake as had been done in the past century.
The principle did not, however, legitimize other views of Christianity, such as Calvinism in England and France, nor the Remonstrants in the Netherlands. A dozen years later, the Eighty Years War began between the Netherlands and Spain (a stronghold of the Roman Catholic Church). Fifty years into that war, Bohemia revolted, and the Thirty Years War began.
The Dutch had a strong navy, but, at this point, the Roman Catholic Church might have retained hope of reuniting Europe in a Roman Empire someday. Then, Sweden revolted. Then, France declared war against Spain. Then Portugal, which had come under the power of Spain's King 60 years before when her king died without an heir to the throne, revolted and put in her own royalty again.
These wars culminated when Spain and the Roman Catholic Church gave up trying to maintain dominant influence throughout Europe, and the principle "whose realm, his religion" was broadened into the Peace of Westphalia, which ceded sovereignty to each of the respective royalties of the various feudal kingdoms in Europe.
Included in this sovereignty, was a distinction in religious worship between public and private; while the royalty of each state might endorse Catholicism, Lutheranism, or Calvinism publicly, private communal worship of minority Christian faiths became tolerated. This freedom could be considered a precedent of the freedom of conscience outlined by William Penn in his Frame of Government of Pennsylvania and later in the United States Bill of Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_government_of_pennsylvania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
A more generous interpretation of this concept, could hold it to be the beginning of the view that property ownership and material prosperity enjoin moral authority; "whose realm, his religion" taken to mean literally that property causes authority.
In this way, the subsequent economic theory of capitalism, the megacorporation, and the balance of power in international relations, can be anticipated.
Property causation of authority, could also anticipate naturalism and its concept of trait fitness (evolutionary theory beginning in 1859). Indeed, that "automatic choice" corresponds to the Lutheran & Calvinist theory of predestination, reaffirms such an interpretation of "natural selection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacorporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_in_international_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
I believe it to be the responsibility of the government of a society to impose on its people some set of minimal laws to maintain civic trust and safety; otherwise, temptation and poverty damage the people and threaten the society's existence.
Morality is the basis of the law; therefore, a government also has a responsibility to maintain a system of morality among the people it governs. In absence of morality, the law is viewed as a tool rather than an end.
"Whose realm, his religion" is a cowardly principle for those in charge of governing a society to decree; it rejects compassion; it presents the people as different irreconcilably; it rejects government; it belittles civility.
Ought the concept of Westphalian sovereignty be reviewed, or abandoned?
What limits ought to be placed on the freedom of conscience, in a society?
Every time I look at my Magic collection and worry that I'm wasting huge chunks of my life, I think of you and feel so much better.
Flame warning.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
This,
and this, are both examples of what might be called "putting the best face on things". The political reality was that in each case, the ruler had lost the power to control the ruled. Rather than making a fuss, trying to continue the facade of rule, and making it blatantly obvious to all that their power had failed, in each case the former ruler chose to say, "I magnanimously choose to set you free! Aren't you grateful?" In other words, none of this is remarkable in the very slightest. They might have been firsts for Europe as far as Christianity's control over nation-states, but they certainly weren't historical firsts.
That's a bit of a stretch, I think. Are you just on your hobbyhorse?
Again, I think you're really stretching to unify things into a causal framework that not only probably doesn't exist, it doesn't *need* to exist. Why do you feel it's so important that all these things tie together? Humans aren't entirely rational beings and not all ideas in history flow logically in orderly fashion down a single track of development like ducks in a row. Can't we allow for the occasional flash of creative inspiration?
What does this even have to do with what you were talking about above??
Well, yeah. But we're talking about the 16th century Catholic Church. Corruption and venality a specialty.
This is a non-question question. Unless you would like to propose an alternate framework by which the world might be organized? Look, I'm sorry to get so angry, but this can't be the way to do things here. Don't just spew 20 Wikipedia links at us and say "discuss among yourselves" and sit back to watch us all try to catch up with you, obediently following your intellectual trail of breadcrumbs. This forum isn't a classroom, it's a debate hall. So suggest an alternative or some course of action. Set the tone. Otherwise it's not much of a debate, is it?
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*