| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - French Revolution
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


French Revolution

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Athena View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04 Jul 2019
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Status: Offline
Points: 155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: French Revolution
    Posted: 10 Jul 2019 at 10:38
Was the French Revolution begun by conservatives of liberal?   
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jul 2019 at 14:59
Conservatives didn't really exist until the counter revolution, right?
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5282
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jul 2019 at 11:04
I agree with Vanuatu.

The concept of conservative at the time would, IMHO, have been supporters of the status quo, that is, the monarchy.

Liberalism arrived with the revolution, allowing the populous a greater say in their society, in theory anyway.
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jul 2019 at 14:32
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I agree with Vanuatu.

The concept of conservative at the time would, IMHO, have been supporters of the status quo, that is, the monarchy.

Liberalism arrived with the revolution, allowing the populous a greater say in their society, in theory anyway.
Yes.
The liberals were the "sans-culottes" ladies who were scrappers, starving and free of their skivvies, just out whoring.Embarrassed The Clergy (so called conservatives in 1789) much preferred organized ritual killing to spontaneous mass slaughters in the streets by the sans culottes. 
Influenced by the men of God, even as Robespierre once proclaimed the the liberty of all men, he undertook the systematic murder of thousands who fell short of Liberty bc they were out of step with the wishes of the State. And the "Council of Safety" led by Robespierre denied individual rights to those who opposed the state and "The Terrors" were visited on anyone who spoke against State or tried to retain their property or flee. 
The details of the slaughter are quite inhuman, reminiscent of Nazis running out of ammo and looking for the least personal way to murder thousands of poor and rich alike. The methods are similar to those used during The Rape of Nan King.


Edited by Vanuatu - 13 Jul 2019 at 00:10
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10220
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jul 2019 at 07:25
Were philosophes conservatives?  Or were they just another form of casualty?
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2019 at 15:02
The French Revolution kind of reads like an agonizing birth. Sort of Marxism or Communism(some are more equal than others) just pure terror, long before the so- called Terror. The leaders who encouraged so much violence typically found themselves being sliced or bludgeoned or gang raped ad hoc. Indiscriminate massacres did incite assassinations of the personal/political hatred sort. Victor Hugo called the men who were responsible for the Terror "civilization's savages"- ideas about violence justified are common as war.

Everyone is entitled to enjoy the advantages of so­cie­ty, but only those who contribute to the public es­tab­lishment are true stockholders (actionnaires) of the great so­cial en­terprise. They alone are truly active cit­izens, true members of the association” (Siéyès, 1789, 193-194).
On Dec. 22, 1789, the National Assembly formally excluded women from the right to vote. And when in 1793, the Society of Republi­can-Revolutionary Wo­men was formed and began to agitate for the rights of women, the Com­mittee on Public Safety appointed a com­mit­tee to consider whether women should exer­cise politi­cal rights and whe­ther they should be allowed to take part in po­litical clubs. The answer to both would be no. The com­mittee deemed that women did not have “the moral and physical qual­ities” to exercise political rights (George, 1976-77, 434).
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10220
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2019 at 15:25
Regarding women and the right to vote, there was a belief that what was represented was the family, not every adult of voting age.  Men, when they came of age, moved out of the house, got married and formed their own families.  Women, however, stayed with the family until marriage.  The head of the household, had the vote, it was assumed that women, if they had the vote, would vote the same as their men.  So part of not having "the moral and physical qualities" was the inability in the face of a potentially domineering and physically stronger male, of coming up with an independent, well articulated logical opinion.
Or, of course, we could allow every one of voting age, to vote, but you can see that that was thought to give large families with lots of girls, an advantage.  They obviously did not factor in how onrey and self-opinionated women can be.  Of course, we don't have to worry about large families with girls anymore, having destroyed the family unitWink


Edited by franciscosan - 22 Jul 2019 at 15:26
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04 Jul 2019
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Status: Offline
Points: 155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2019 at 12:23
Care to read Thomas Jefferson's eye witness account of how the revolution began?


Jefferson mentions the Swiss and German troops in France and that alerts me to the possibility that Calvinism was very much a part of the revolutionary spirit.  What do you think?


Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2019 at 03:20
Originally posted by Athena Athena wrote:

Care to read Thomas Jefferson's eye witness account of how the revolution began?


Jefferson mentions the Swiss and German troops in France and that alerts me to the possibility that Calvinism was very much a part of the revolutionary spirit.  What do you think?


I'm happy to hear your reasoning on the Calvinism connection.Smile
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04 Jul 2019
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Status: Offline
Points: 155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2019 at 16:54
Calvin was French.  I think everyone here may appreciate knowing...

Quote Calvinism was immediately popular and was appealing across geographic and social boundaries. In France it was attractive primarily to the nobility and the urban upper classes,
 
 

Now the French became intolerant of Calvin and his teaching so he and his followers fled to Geneva.  That is why I was alerted to his role in the revolution when I read Swiss troops were in France.   It is not that I am well versed in the story but it has to be a good one because it was the upper class that started the revolution.  The same class of people attracted to Calvinism were refusing to pay a tax the king needed them to pay because France was going bankrupt.  

This is the part of Calvinism that I think made it a powerful movement and I think historians have down played the economic importance of Calvinism...

Quote Social and economic influences[edit]

Calvin expressed himself on usury in a 1545 letter to a friend, Claude de Sachin, in which he criticized the use of certain passages of scripture invoked by people opposed to the charging of interest. He reinterpreted some of these passages, and suggested that others of them had been rendered irrelevant by changed conditions. He also dismissed the argument (based upon the writings of Aristotle) that it is wrong to charge interest for money because money itself is barren. He said that the walls and the roof of a house are barren, too, but it is permissible to charge someone for allowing him to use them. In the same way, money can be made fruitful.[144]

He qualified his view, however, by saying that money should be lent to people in dire need without hope of interest, while a modest interest rate of 5% should be permitted in relation to other borrowers.[145]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism 

Imagine just coming into money and just beginning to have a sense of personal power and  the king, without presidency, announces he wants to take that money!  These dudes are not thinking of the economic problem France has, they are thinking of their own fate and they are not going to passively allow the king to destroy their chance in life.   And keep in mind, the Catholic church stood against the loans that must be made for capitalism to thrive.  France was Catholic and the church got tithes.  The religion that prevents economic growth is by law taking tithes and what the church doesn't take, the king wants to take.  This is an economic fight.  The peasants were starving and fought for their lives, but it was the people with money who started the revolution.   They had a sense of personal power that comes from having money and were not going to give that up.   


Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2019 at 03:52
Quote
Imagine just coming into money and just beginning to have a sense of personal power and  the king, without presidency, announces he wants to take that money!  These dudes are not thinking of the economic problem France has, they are thinking of their own fate and they are not going to passively allow the king to destroy their chance in life.   And keep in mind, the Catholic church stood against the loans that must be made for capitalism to thrive.  France was Catholic and the church got tithes.  The religion that prevents economic growth is by law taking tithes and what the church doesn't take, the king wants to take.  This is an economic fight.  The peasants were starving and fought for their lives, but it was the people with money who started the revolution.   They had a sense of personal power that comes from having money and were not going to give that up.   

So you are giving the Calvinist credit for being forward thinking and with an eye towards Capitalism?
If I understand correctly then I agree. 
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04 Jul 2019
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Status: Offline
Points: 155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2019 at 04:51
For sure we would not have the economy we have today without Calvinistic reasoning.  Imagine if you can the hope of salvation is being poor and pious, versus there is no hope of salvation because our destiny is 100% in God's hands, and we can neither gain nor loose God's favor.  Only a few people have hope of being among those destined to see heaven.  The trick is, no one knows if it is his/her destiny to go to heaven or not.  However, if a person is blessed with good fortune, that is a sign of being among the chosen few.  The joke is this made people workaholics, because getting rich was a sign of being among the chosen few. It is not that trade and technology would not have created wealth for the few, but no pious person would want that considering money is the root of evil.   Only dirty, immoral people would seek wealth, until Calvinism made wealth the sign of being blessed by God.    

That is a liberal idea, if people had a formal notion of liberal or not because it goes against the status quo of being subject and obedient to a king and accepting your fate of being only what you were born to be, and to serve God by serving the king, much as an Egyptian was born to serve the pharaoh.   It puts the unknown chosen few on the same level as a king, because you are either among the chosen or you are not.   You not subject to the king, but only to God and because you can not loose God's favor, it doesn't matter if you get your hands dirty with money.   It is your destiny to enjoy blessings.   

While these beliefs are like a pot of stew with everything thrown in, and we can see everything differently, say we don't like onions and don't include them in our idea stew (concept of God's truth),  the one thing for sure, was the change in social order!   That change was liberal not conservative.  

Here is a link to the relationship between Calvinism and Capitalism.  https://www.speakfreely.today/2018/07/05/calvinism-and-capitalism/

Jefferson plagiarized Locke who said we have a right to life, liberty, and land, rather a right Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Our form of democracy protects property rights and opposes communism which attempted to put human rights first as the church of old might do.  But that church of old supported slavery and serfs and a king's right take or give land.  

We could throw the Quakers in here with their belief that we all go through Jesus Christ, not the king nor the Church.  That is very liberating.  This is a matter of social organization.  To be a conservative is to oppose change.  To desire change is to be liberal.   I think we forget, Christianity was based on a social order of kings, subjects and salves.  Under Rome the Church got incredible power and it did this by supporting the old order of power over the poor.   Shifting the commandment of God, from his people are not to be slaves, to his people serve Him well by being obedient slaves.  To be liberal is to oppose that old order.   


Edited by Athena - 04 Aug 2019 at 05:04
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2019 at 10:32
So conservatives don't figure in the capitalists plan and Calvinists were liberal?
That's not consistent with my understanding of Calvinism.

Also, as a power structure the church was a force in civilization in addition to a legal system, art, military, pre-christian culture, roads and more factors all contributing to the landscape in a given period. So many common threads lead to this place yet you seem intent on infusing god or specifically Christianity as the bane of humanity.

Did pre-Christian Native Americans separate, and fight each other? Or was it one big happy family?
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04 Jul 2019
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Status: Offline
Points: 155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2019 at 16:14
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

So conservatives don't figure in the capitalists plan and Calvinists were liberal?
That's not consistent with my understanding of Calvinism.

Also, as a power structure the church was a force in civilization in addition to a legal system, art, military, pre-christian culture, roads and more factors all contributing to the landscape in a given period. So many common threads lead to this place yet you seem intent on infusing god or specifically Christianity as the bane of humanity.

Did pre-Christian Native Americans separate, and fight each other? Or was it one big happy family?

I love your argument.Big smile  It is so much fun playing here.  If truth were water and we had a box full of different colored dyes, the water would be many different colors and still be water.  I am so glad you do not force everything into either/or arguments.  

I think Calvinism is a terrible belief system, but what made it liberal is changing of the status quo held by the Church and also the status quo held by aristocrats and their more or less parental treatment of the poor.  The upward economic mobility made possible with Calvinism also lead to the exploitation of laborers, and the justification of this.  Shocked   You see, the industrialists blessings (wealth) were the sign of being in God's favor, and the deprived poor were just undeserving.  That was worse than the Church and charity and the aristocrats who were expected to be as parents to the peasants.  Calvinism sort of turned the piety of poverty on its head.  No more monks with their vows of poverty.

We like to think the US is the best country in the world, but this is not where the people are the happiest.  Our Protestant work ethic, has a down side.   We don't mind the 1% having wealth and ignoring the needs of the poor (a cause of revolution).  Being deserving does not mean giving as Jesus gave and not being concerned about worldly matters, nor is being deserving caring for others as women have always been the care givers, but being deserving is proven by God's blessings, material wealth.   In China they have no problem accepting not everyone can fit in the top.  In the US we don't seem to get that, and insist that everyone should try harder and buy stocks to managing their retirement years as though everyone can get to the top if they try hard enough.  

Whoops Embarrassed that got a little far from the French revolution.  Catholic France did not industrialize as quickly as Protestant Britain did and the aristocracy of France didn't cave as it did in Britain, and France persecuted Protestants.  I think we should consider what religion has to do with revolutions and what it means to be conservative or liberal.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation

Native Americans were no more united than the Celts who had better morals than the Romans.  The natives in the Northwest did unite and attempt to resist the White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant take over of their land but the flood from Europe was too great and disease weakened the natives, and they could not get enforcement of the treaties made with the WASP.  However, there was, and still is, a huge contrast between native American tribes.  For example the Hopi are non aggressive and the Apache are proud to be warriors.  The differences in rearing children leading to differences in culture.  

Thank you for correcting your statement that I "seem intent on infusing god or specifically Christianity as the bane of humanity".  I have a relationship with God and I appreciate that being respected.  I believe religion is very divisive and that all religions have contributed to civilization and the arts.  I began searching for God's truth at age 8 and that search was not limited to studying the bible.  Nor do I see Christianity as one religion and the bible sure isn't a book for democracy.  

Not until there was literacy in Greek and Roman classics did anyone see democracy in the bible, and not until our bellies were full and we learned to think scientifically and get control over the evils that plagued humanity,  did the jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God become the loving God who is worshiped today instead of the feared God.  We no longer beat the devil out of our children.  That is a nice improvement.  My biggest problem with Christianity is the myth that all good comes from Christianity leaving us ignorant of world religions and philosophy, and the importance of Greek and Roman classics, and the fear that knowledge comes from the devil.   Abstractly interpreting the bible isn't a bad thing, but concretely interpreting it and studying only the bible, is not a good thing.  
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 2027
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Aug 2019 at 17:16
Originally posted by Athena Athena wrote:

For sure we would not have the economy we have today without Calvinistic reasoning.  Imagine if you can the hope of salvation is being poor and pious, versus there is no hope of salvation because our destiny is 100% in God's hands, and we can neither gain nor loose God's favor.  Only a few people have hope of being among those destined to see heaven.  The trick is, no one knows if it is his/her destiny to go to heaven or not.  However, if a person is blessed with good fortune, that is a sign of being among the chosen few.  The joke is this made people workaholics, because getting rich was a sign of being among the chosen few. It is not that trade and technology would not have created wealth for the few, but no pious person would want that considering money is the root of evil.   Only dirty, immoral people would seek wealth, until Calvinism made wealth the sign of being blessed by God. 
 
Yes. Where does this idea come from? From the Old Testament Jews and America was the Calvinists New Jerusalem, the Manifest Destiny to make the entire continent according to the idea of American exceptionalism. Dutch merchants influenced the Calvinists and the economic world right?   

Quote That is a liberal idea, if people had a formal notion of liberal or not because it goes against the status quo of being subject and obedient to a king and accepting your fate of being only what you were born to be, and to serve God by serving the king, much as an Egyptian was born to serve the pharaoh.   It puts the unknown chosen few on the same level as a king, because you are either among the chosen or you are not.   You not subject to the king, but only to God and because you can not loose God's favor, it doesn't matter if you get your hands dirty with money.   It is your destiny to enjoy blessings.
The Calvinists believes he is living up to his fate, was born to it. It's a system of ritual daily obligations and yes the motive was God's favor.  

Quote While these beliefs are like a pot of stew with everything thrown in, and we can see everything differently, say we don't like onions and don't include them in our idea stew (concept of God's truth),  the one thing for sure, was the change in social order!   That change was liberal not conservative. 
It is very conservative much like the Jewish Laws for the Calvinist.

Quote
Jefferson plagiarized Locke who said we have a right to life, liberty, and land, rather a right Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Our form of democracy protects property rights and opposes communism which attempted to put human rights first as the church of old might do.  But that church of old supported slavery and serfs and a king's right take or give land. 
Jefferson plagiarized, not agreed with Locke?

Quote We could throw the Quakers in here with their belief that we all go through Jesus Christ, not the king nor the Church.  That is very liberating.  This is a matter of social organization.  To be a conservative is to oppose change.
So say democratic talking points, why don't you support your argument? If you indeed refer to the present day cite contemporary examples.

Quote   To desire change is to be liberal.   I think we forget, Christianity was based on a social order of kings, subjects and salves.  Under Rome the Church got incredible power and it did this by supporting the old order of power over the poor.   Shifting the commandment of God, from his people are not to be slaves, to his people serve Him well by being obedient slaves.  To be liberal is to oppose that old order.   
Please identify one ancient civilization that WASN'T built on Kings, Subjects and Slaves. Don't forget the Arab slave trade predates Atlantic slave trade by 800 years.
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 04 Jul 2019
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Status: Offline
Points: 155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2019 at 01:31
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by Athena Athena wrote:

For sure we would not have the economy we have today without Calvinistic reasoning.  Imagine if you can the hope of salvation is being poor and pious, versus there is no hope of salvation because our destiny is 100% in God's hands, and we can neither gain nor loose God's favor.  Only a few people have hope of being among those destined to see heaven.  The trick is, no one knows if it is his/her destiny to go to heaven or not.  However, if a person is blessed with good fortune, that is a sign of being among the chosen few.  The joke is this made people workaholics, because getting rich was a sign of being among the chosen few. It is not that trade and technology would not have created wealth for the few, but no pious person would want that considering money is the root of evil.   Only dirty, immoral people would seek wealth, until Calvinism made wealth the sign of being blessed by God. 
 
Yes. Where does this idea come from? From the Old Testament Jews and America was the Calvinists New Jerusalem, the Manifest Destiny to make the entire continent according to the idea of American exceptionalism. Dutch merchants influenced the Calvinists and the economic world right?   

Quote That is a liberal idea, if people had a formal notion of liberal or not because it goes against the status quo of being subject and obedient to a king and accepting your fate of being only what you were born to be, and to serve God by serving the king, much as an Egyptian was born to serve the pharaoh.   It puts the unknown chosen few on the same level as a king, because you are either among the chosen or you are not.   You not subject to the king, but only to God and because you can not loose God's favor, it doesn't matter if you get your hands dirty with money.   It is your destiny to enjoy blessings.
The Calvinists believes he is living up to his fate, was born to it. It's a system of ritual daily obligations and yes the motive was God's favor.  

Quote While these beliefs are like a pot of stew with everything thrown in, and we can see everything differently, say we don't like onions and don't include them in our idea stew (concept of God's truth),  the one thing for sure, was the change in social order!   That change was liberal not conservative. 

It is very conservative much like the Jewish Laws for the Calvinist.

Quote
Jefferson plagiarized Locke who said we have a right to life, liberty, and land, rather a right Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  Our form of democracy protects property rights and opposes communism which attempted to put human rights first as the church of old might do.  But that church of old supported slavery and serfs and a king's right take or give land. 
Jefferson plagiarized, not agreed with Locke?

Quote We could throw the Quakers in here with their belief that we all go through Jesus Christ, not the king nor the Church.  That is very liberating.  This is a matter of social organization.  To be a conservative is to oppose change.
So say democratic talking points, why don't you support your argument? If you indeed refer to the present day cite contemporary examples.

Quote   To desire change is to be liberal.   I think we forget, Christianity was based on a social order of kings, subjects and salves.  Under Rome the Church got incredible power and it did this by supporting the old order of power over the poor.   Shifting the commandment of God, from his people are not to be slaves, to his people serve Him well by being obedient slaves.  To be liberal is to oppose that old order.   
Please identify one ancient civilization that WASN'T built on Kings, Subjects and Slaves. Don't forget the Arab slave trade predates Atlantic slave trade by 800 years.

This is my last line that needs to come first as I have answered your last question with a rather long explanation of the revolution of consciousness that applies to all humans.  We begin as tribes of equals helping each other survive and get notions of the supernatural and forum hierarchies  of power over us and then tear them down.  Notice the word hierarchies begins with "hier" as in to inherit something. Powerful families around the world rose to power and the people have repeatedly rebelled against them.  Religion can prevent this for awhile but not forever.   

Understand the American and French revolutions might depend on an agreement about what the word liberty means.  The meaning of the word has been distorted in contemporary USA but not in Europe.  The notion of liberal goes with the words, liberty and liberate and means free of authority over us, except for the authority of God.  It goes with freedom of religion and there is no human authority who can deny us the right to believe want we want about God and our relationship with a God, although humans constantly take that responsibility on themselves to get everyone else to see God's truth and the laws, the same way.   

It is not just the God of Abraham religious folks who fear a punishing god, as soon as humans imagined a god they imagined a need to please the god and began to fear the god's punishment.  I think this some benefit when god and nature were seen as one and the same thing.  We must obey the laws of nature or things go badly.  The further a notion of god gets from nature, the more problematic the god becomes.  The Christian God unfortunately is supernatural god with supernatural powers and other supernatural beings and this God has the ability to determine our leaders and fate.  Here is a problem.  Some Asians, north American colonist, and French decided they don't have to accept God's choice of a king or empire but have the right to choose their own leader.   That is liberal.  Revolutions were fought to liberate the people from those in the seats of power and to put that power in the hands of the people, not God!   Oh they wouldn't explain their actions that way, but that is what it all boils down to.  I do not know how they used the bible to justify shifting the power of God to themselves but they did.   

Liberating the people had everything to do with MONEY AND OWNING LAND .  This is where the Calvinist become important, but it would be too simplistic to speak of only one religious group because it not really a smarter person who changes anything, but a change in reality that demands people think differently.  New leaders raise on a wave created by changed consciousness.   Can we be really simple about this?  This is so for Eastern civilization as well western civilization.  When people stop believing only their empire has the power of god, that is the end of the empires unquestioned rule, and when they must have land to feed themselves and there is not enough good land for everyone, the fight is on, because it is really a fight for survival.   If their god is not helping them survive they need to change their understanding of god and when their understanding of god changes so does the worldly power structure change.   

The bigger picture does not exactly depend on this group verses that group or what a holy book says.  As we can see with our constitution, as our consciousness changes so does our interpretation of the holy book or constitution change.  When we get into trouble we have to change our consciousness.  Revolutions are about changed consciousness and that makes them liberating, like a butterfly being free of the cocoon.  The American Revolution was a revolution of consciousness long before any shoots were fired.  The people escaped Europe to act on their new consciousness and had 200 years of living this new way before the king tried to take power from them and create himself as authority over them.  That is why their revolution succeeded and the French one did not.  The consciousness of France was changed but they didn't have 200 years experience living the new way, so all hell broke out and exactly like liberated communist countries, the cry for a return to the familiar law and order rose, putting the French back under the power of an empire.   

I will grant you this, using the Bible as authority is conservative.  LOL  And USA needs psycho analysis just like a human being with beliefs that are causing his/her life to be a problem.  Democracy is not compatible with the God of Abraham.   We need to expand our knowledge to eastern civilization and to see how our beliefs are similar because humans are humans and they all have basically the same evolving consciousness about nature, the supernatural and then liberty and justice.   
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.