Politics Is modern Europe product of christian values?

[LeBrok]

I think modern Europe has herself inspired from Christian values, and from Renaissance and the French revolution to develop into her current form.

I know we used to attribute many current events and systems of modern Europe as coming from heritage of Christian Europe. But can we really describe what are the unique Christian values that helped to build modern Europe?


I've found easier to express what Christianity didn't affect in Modern Europe, so here it is:

- Christianity doesn't affect food we eat, unlike Hebrew and Muslim religions, as eating kosher foods.
- It doesn't affect fashion and how we dress. Except in some european villages, where covering heads by married women is still practiced.
- It doesn't influence architecture or art anymore. In past church was the biggest art sponsor, because it was the richest institution and power center.
- It doesn't affect sciences, except setting limitations and declaring some experiments unethical, as in stem cells research. It never brought insides on inner working of the world, human nature included.
- It has nothing to do with modern political systems, and democracy in particular or protection of minorities. Catholic church and many others are structurally still stuck in feudal times. At the time of collapse of empires after WWI, all churches were always pro monarchs, the old power establishment, and against new political changes.
- It didn't take part in creation of modern economic system, nor banking system. Actually the church was a hindrance in unleashing capital and investments making lending and charging interest a sin. In many european countries real christians were not to take upon commerce and trading, as it was the "sinful" Jewish occupation.
- It doesn't affect sports or sport rules, except occasionally blessing a football in some countries.
- It doesn't participate in television culture, except transmitting a mas on not very popular channels.
- It is even losing a licence on moral teachings and life guidance. It is more and more evident that atheists are as moral or immoral as believers, and even more tolerant and inclusive than them, which is what united europe or world needs for peaceful coexistence.
- Freedoms that we cherish so much these days were not achieved with help of ten commandments or christian doctrines, but with democracy, citizenship and good economy.
- Good standard of living is due to good governance and strong economy, which has nothing to do with being christian or god's miracles.
- Policing and civil law went away from religious influences, except traditional (in some countries) swearing on the Bible, which seemed never stopped people from lying.

Granted there is still some influence christianity have in politics and schools or censoring masmedia. But I can't see much of modern achievements of Europe, or what would be considered european culture and mindset, coming from long history of Europe in Christian hands. If anything modern Europe began when Christian Churches started to lose their grip on every segment of people's life. From Renaissance humanism and more scientific freedom, to birth of new economic and political systems of 20th century, and finally EU.

In general Churches were always conservative and traditional, acting as the guardians of the "old good ways", and as such missed the boat on participation in creating Modern Europe. I'm concluding that Modern Europe happened in spite of Christian Values, values expressed by Christian Churches and their policies and politics.

 

[Elias2]

I know we used to attribute many current events and systems of modern Europe as coming from heritage of Christan Europe. But can we really describe what are the unique Christian values that helped to build modern Europe?

The biggest? seperation of church and state, something I don't see at all in muslim countries, Turkey included.

 

[Yetos]

I know we used to attribute many current events and systems of modern Europe as coming from heritage of Christan Europe. But can we really describe what are the unique Christian values that helped to build modern Europe?

there are 4 kinds of christianity

1 is the old destroy the rest, kill philosophers, inquisitors etc
2 is the holy wars like the 30 war 100 years wars etc
3 is the Divine style state like byzantium
4 is the thing that Elias told separation of state and church, Laws must taken after state and not by church,

the difference is that in Europe we don't throw stones to a sinner,
something that can be found in some islamic areas also like west Turkey , but deeper in Islam mullahs have bigger power than majors or other rulers,

 

[Brett142]

Absolutely, if they join us they won't join THEM. So what if they are muslim? They will just assimilate to European culture and lose their religiosity anyway. Yes they would have one of the biggest says in the EU but the UK Germany and France have 200 million people nearly 3 times that of Turkey so somehow I don't see why it's such a big issue. And for all the racists out there, they are still classed as white Caucasian and I would love ANYONE to tell the difference between Turks and Greeks side by side.

 

[LeBrok]

The biggest? seperation of church and state, something I don't see at all in muslim countries, Turkey included.

It's a bit from left field, but be it. Do you think it was christian/religious idea, or pure philosophical and secular one, or political solution when democratic parliaments took over power, after WWI when old monarchies collapsed? You can’t find any christian decalogue, catechism, or dogma preaching separation of church and state, before first instance of separation. Just because this idea took place first in christian country it doesn't mean that idea itself is of religious christian influence, therefore of christian values.
Let’s see what history has to say about this.

First attempt of separation was in England:

The barons, who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, wanted to create a separation between church and state powers to keep the Crown from using the Church as a political weapon and from arbitrarily seizing its lands and property. However, the Pope annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear" one month after it was signed. The Magna Carta was reissued, albeit with alterations, in 1216 and 1225 but continued to be a subject of contention for several centuries as it was either seen as providing legal precedence or by later monarchs as restricting their authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_and_state_in_medieval_Europe
Looks like motivation was purely political and financial interest on both sides, in which pope (religion) was against separation.

In modern times first separation document, known as Wall of Separation, was written by Thomas Jefferson in USA. He also championed Religious Freedom law in 1777, with meaning that all religions are equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

And if you think that these noble ideas started from his christian bliefs, think again.
Here are his words:

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

The idea of separation wasn't christian/religious, and it went against strong protests of all christian leaders in Europe. It is a product of Europe and North America, but not of christian tradition.

 

[Antigone]

I know we used to attribute many current events and systems of modern Europe as coming from heritage of Christan Europe. But can we really describe what are the unique Christian values that helped to build modern Europe?

No. The term Christian Values is another of those meaningless cliches (usually originating with a politician, in this case GW Bush I think) that is currently in vogue to throw about. But ask anyone to define what exactly are Christian Values and how they differ from other "values" and they usually can't answer.

Imo what is really meant by the term is merely the western way of life, which of course, has (and always had) more to do with making money than religion. Anything else is just fancy window dressing as a sop for those who like to think themselves as morally superior.

 

[Maciamo]

I was raised in a Catholic environment, and underwent what could be called fundamentalist, almost medieval catechism in primary school (with teachers taking the Bible literally and threatening kids that they will go to hell if they didn't behaved and thought exactly as they said). I quickly became an agnostic, then after a lot of deep philosophical reflection from the age of 10 (I was intellectually precocious), and my first acquaintance with neuropsychology at the age of 15, eventually turned me into a strong atheist by the age of 18. I have since made sure that nothing in my life could be influenced by Christianity or other religions. I boycotted all religious ceremonies, from the family traditions like baptisms and communions to church weddings and religious funerals, even for close family members (they knew I wouldn't attend if there was even a slight reference to religion).

After living in non-Christian countries (like Japan or India), I got enough perspective to distinguish what part of modern European culture for a non-religious person could be still be essentially of Christian origin, but I couldn't find anything. Genetics has taught me that people behave first and foremost the way they are designed to by their genes. Culture obviously has an influence on our behaviour, but cannot eradicate innate traits of character or instincts. Economic and social circumstances also tend to play a bigger role on people's behaviour than culture. Altruism and kindness are two of the most important values of true Christianity (of the New Testament at least), and yet I found it to be much more prevalent among the Japanese, who are mostly atheists or agnostics. This proves my point that religion cannot change the nature of people, and people don't need religion to be good.

Modern society is based on sciences (and its derivative like technology, medicine, etc.), which is the worst enemy of religions. Any scientist who claims he/she can be religious is not a true scientist (by 'scientist' I mean someone whose aim it is to understand the laws of the universe, not just anybody using a scientific formula or technology based on science - there is a huge difference between a thinker that acquires and develops knowledge and a mere consumer/applicant of science).

 

[Gavroche]

Any scientist who claims he/she can be religious is not a true scientist

Sounds like a fundamentalist atheist...:innocent:

 

[Maciamo]

Sounds like a fundamentalist atheist...:innocent:

There is no fundamentalist atheism, as there is no atheist scriptures or doctrines (and therefore no opposition between the strict and liberal interpretations of the scriptures).

 

[sparkey]

Although just as strong an atheist as Maciamo in my personal beliefs, I am much less irritated by being around others when they are being religious. In fact, I find religious practice very interesting, and comparative religion is one of my favorite subjects.

One thing that I have noticed when studying comparative religion is how, when cultures adopt a religion, the culture rubs off on the religion at least as much as the religion rubs off on the culture. It happened historically with the development of all the different flavors of Christianity. It's easy to see how English Anglicanism is; how Italian Roman Catholicism is (when practiced in Italy... it tends to take local flavors elsewhere); how Germanic-Scandinavian Lutheranism is; how extremely Calvinism was influenced by a cultural shift to rationalism amongst academics in 16th century Europe...

So before anyone makes the argument about the "Puritan work ethic" and how that influenced England and got it industrialized, know that this is thinking about it wrong... English culture (specifically, the more Anglo-Saxon variety that you find in places like East Anglia) influenced English Christian practice to create Puritanism, so what we're seeing is not Christian influence creating anything, only English culture.

That's not to say that Christian influence is not felt, but it's mostly in things like iconography and ritual, rather than politics, common culture, and behavior.

 

[Antigone]

I agree entirely Sparkey. As all religions are man made constructs, then it stands to reason that it is man who has influenced religion and not the other way around.

 

[Maciamo]

Although just as strong an atheist as Maciamo in my personal beliefs, I am much less irritated by being around others when they are being religious. In fact, I find religious practice very interesting, and comparative religion is one of my favorite subjects.

Comparative religion is also one of my favourite subjects (well, I have dozens and dozens of favourite subjects). I am irritated by Christianity and Islam in particular, but much less by other religions. I am even well inclined towards Buddhism, as long as it is close to the original doctrine and not a degenerate demagogic version like the Pure Land school (which preaches that anybody can attain enlightenment after they die as long as they chant the name of Amitābha Buddha to clear their karma !) or eccentric, shamanistic sects of Vajrayana Buddhism with all their scary colourful deities imported from Hinduism (that includes Tibetan Buddhism, the only Buddhist theocracy in the world).

 

[sparkey]

Comparative religion is also one of my favourite subjects (well, I have dozens and dozens of favourite subjects). I am irritated by Christianity and Islam in particular, but much less by other religions. I am even well inclined towards Buddhism, as long as it is close to the original doctrine and not a degenerate demagogic version like the Pure Land school (which preaches that anybody can attain enlightenment after they die as long as they chant the name of Amitābha Buddha to clear their karma !) or eccentric, shamanistic sects of Vajrayana Buddhism with all their scary colourful deities imported from Hinduism (that includes Tibetan Buddhism, the only Buddhist theocracy in the world).

Neat, I have similar opinions of Buddhist sects. I've explored Nichiren Buddhism out of intellectual curiosity and found the differences within the sect fascinating... basically, a subset (SGI and its parent, Nichiren Shoshu) have invented history to establish themselves as the correct school to follow, and have become the most common form of that sect. It's an informative look into how religions spread despite divergence from the truth. It reminds me of Mormonism. But that's getting off topic.

Actually, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism are good examples of the culture-influencing-religion pattern I noted above. The Sino-Tibetan substratum present in Mayahana Buddhism is so obvious, it nearly becomes the religion (I apologize for borrowing linguistic terms when talking about religions).

 

[Yetos]

I have reason to believe that christianity was a marriage of Orphic religion, Persian Methras, with the Hebrew

many of that we call christian values are written in στωικοι (stoic)

like χρυσσιπος or Ζηνων etc

beggining from Παρμενιδης (parmenides) and Ξενοφανης Xenophanes

 

[Elias2]

It's a bit from left field, but be it. Do you think it was christian/religious idea, or pure philosophical and secular one, or political solution when democratic parliaments took over power, after WWI when old monarchies collapsed? You can’t find any christian decalogue, catechism, or dogma preaching separation of church and state, before first instance of separation. Just because this idea took place first in christian country it doesn't mean that idea itself is of religious christian influence, therefore of christian values.
Let’s see what history has to say about this.


First attempt of separation was in England:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_and_state_in_medieval_Europe
Looks like motivation was purely political and financial interest on both sides, in which pope (religion) was against separation.

In modern times first separation document, known as Wall of Separation, was written by Thomas Jefferson in USA. He also championed Religious Freedom law in 1777, with meaning that all religions are equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

And if you think that these noble ideas started from his christian bliefs, think again.
Here are his words:


The idea of separation wasn't christian/religious, and it went against strong protests of all christian leaders in Europe. It is a product of Europe and North America, but not of christian tradition.

Christian tradition, christian teaching and christian implimentation generally was not the same thing overall in the medieval era. King's invoked the authority of god to give meaning to their ruling. In the bible, the new testament, there is no outline like there is in the Koran about how to run a state and no version of sharia. But what you asked specifically was what unique christian values helped build modern europe, and the answer to this is the allowence of the seperation of church and state.

To futher explain what I meant by the seration of church and state, we need to look at the three main chirsitan religions in Europe; protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. Out of these three the first to seperate church and state was the Catholic with the gregorian reforms. In this the patriach of Rome claimed the "divine" should belong to the church and not the state. This lead to conflict wit the holy roman emperor at the time, but eventually the patriach won. This was in the 11th century, in which church and state in catholicism was disconnected and a clear realm of athority was established between the kings authority and the vatican's monopoly of the divine. This continues now with the vatican.

Orthodox was different and evolved differently. The Eastern Roman emperor had more control over the patriach of Constantinople and therefore the break between church and state would not come for orthodox untill the 19th century in the balkans with the independant movements of greeks, serbs, and bulgarians, breaking away from the Ottoman empire and starting their own churches. The Ottomans used to patrarch of Constantinople as a tool to control the Roman Millet since 1453. For russia, the Tsar's power, which was similar to the Eastern Roman Emperor's of previous, would stop with the Russian Revolution.

Protestant is very different because there is no general heirarchy in this form of christianity as we see with the five patriarchs of the original christian churches, and therefore there was no individual to grapple with the king over power, or influence developments in the state. The queen of england is also the head of the church of england, but again its different because protestant is not one sigle doctron (over a 1000 protestant denominations) and therefore would be imposible to implement a "protestant" state.

This evolution of seperation of church and state, and the acceptance of it, is the biggest contributer to modern europe form the medieval tradition in my opinion. The Greco-roman traditions are far more influencial now than christianity.

To conclude this very long post, I want to just take a short look at the muslim view. It is very hard for muslim countries to seperate church and state because islam was made with the idea both should be combine from the start. The koran and Hadith have very clear explinations on how to run a state based off Islam, from how to tax people, the dual level of citizen status, and even motivations for going to war. This general outline is alien in christianity and this is why the modern middle east is struggling to modernize.

Attaturk thought the solution to this problem in islam is the make the army have authority to topple governments that they thought were too islamic, but this leaves a giant inconvienient truth about islamic countries; they are unable to have a true democratic system like we see in europe if this is the only solution. The AKP party of Turkey used EU membership as a tool to get rid of the army's role to topple governments, but its comming very clear he just used it as an excuse to do so, without seriously thinking about joining EU. This can lead to armlarming developments in Turkey by the AKP government, which started off in political islam.

 

[sparkey]

I have reason to believe that christianity was a marriage of Orphic religion, Persian Methras, with the Hebrew

I know Richard Olson holds this view. I think that at least, the mystery religions influenced the development of Christianity, especially Pauline and Gnostic Christianity.

 

[LeBrok]

To futher explain what I meant by the seration of church and state, we need to look at the three main chirsitan religions in Europe; protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. Out of these three the first to seperate church and state was the Catholic with the gregorian reforms. In this the patriach of Rome claimed the "divine" should belong to the church and not the state. This lead to conflict wit the holy roman emperor at the time, but eventually the patriach won. This was in the 11th century, in which church and state in catholicism was disconnected and a clear realm of athority was established between the kings authority and the vatican's monopoly of the divine. This continues now with the vatican.

This was only one way separation to secure all church's properties and gaining full control over catholicism and its subjects by pope. Other words the church was separated from state influence, but the state wasn't separated from church influence. For next 800 years catholic church was busy meddling into states affairs, supporting certain politicians and people in power over others. Certifying kings elections, excommunicating many uncooperative ones. In many countries church till 1900 century was the biggest land owner and employer. Thanks to this it could wield it's economic (financial) powers in politics, justice system, education system, even military. Till Renascence church has lead armies of many countries for crusades, wiped out pagan Prussians in Europe and acquired new lands and subjects in Americas. Church's influence in judicial system of many countries burned ("saved from hell") thousands of innocent men and women. Church's dominance over "understanding and explaining" science had lead to delays in publications of revolutionary scientific papers, or simply killed scientists, and burned their work.

Yes, catholic church got it's separation and control over "Divine", and its property. Unfortunately the state, education, courts, etc had to wait till 20th century to get their separation from church. That's the true separation that we are so proud of today and consider it a progress.

King's invoked the authority of god to give meaning to their ruling.

This, plus they, as head of church, had a hefty sums of money coming from church's lands, properties, and donations. Power and money was unified in one hand.
When the "divine" separation happened, in many catholic countries bishops became richer and more powerful than kings. Popular story of 3 musketries made one of these examples very famous. Should we mention Spanish inquisition?

 

[Antigone]

Protestant is very different because there is no general heirarchy in this form of christianity as we see with the five patriarchs of the original christian churches, and therefore there was no individual to grapple with the king over power, or influence developments in the state. The queen of england is also the head of the church of england, but again its different because protestant is not one sigle doctron (over a 1000 protestant denominations) and therefore would be imposible to implement a "protestant" state.

When Henry VIII split from Rome and made himself head of the Church of England it was really quite a clever move, for a king. In one swoop he made himself absolute ruler over his people, not only did he have complete civil power but he also took for himself complete spiritual power. So in England's case (and later Great Britains) we see a re-inforcing of the combination of church and state and not a seperation.

The Monarch of Great Britain who is also the supreme head of the Church of England still has the power to dissolve parlaiment. The current Queen just chooses not to exersice that power but that is not to say that any future monarch will not be quite so liberal in outlook. Technically there is still not a complete seperation of church and state in Britain, but the British seem quite happy with the current state of affairs. Although they may not be quite so complacent if Charles or later, William (as kings) decide they want more involvement in politics.

 

[Elias2]

This was only one way separation to secure all church's properties and gaining full control over catholicism and its subjects by pope. Other words the church was separated from state influence, but the state wasn't separated from church influence. For next 800 years catholic church was busy meddling into states affairs, supporting certain politicians and people in power over others. Certifying kings elections, excommunicating many uncooperative ones. In many countries church till 1900 century was the biggest land owner and employer. Thanks to this it could wield it's economic (financial) powers in politics, justice system, education system, even military. Till Renascence church has lead armies of many countries for crusades, wiped out pagan Prussians in Europe and acquired new lands and subjects in Americas. Church's influence in judicial system of many countries burned ("saved from hell") thousands of innocent men and women. Church's dominance over "understanding and explaining" science had lead to delays in publications of revolutionary scientific papers, or simply killed scientists, and burned their work.

Yes, catholic church got it's separation and control over "Divine", and its property. Unfortunately the state, education, courts, etc had to wait till 20th century to get their separation from church. That's the true separation that we are so proud of today and consider it a progress.


This, plus they, as head of church, had a hefty sums of money coming from church's lands, properties, and donations. Power and money was unified in one hand.
When the "divine" separation happened, in many catholic countries bishops became richer and more powerful than kings. Popular story of 3 musketries made one of these examples very famous. Should we mention Spanish inquisition?

It is true that church still had a big influence in state affairs and politics, the church in rome had very little control over actually dictating orders to the rulers of catholic europe. The Patriarch of Rome was very much just a political tool for the catholic elite to grapple each other over heriditary rights and so forth.

 

[Asturrulumbo]

I do think it's a great misunderstanding to think that science and religion are opposed. Science, as an epistemological construct, is based on an empirical-rational (that is to say, analytical, that is to say, scientific) understanding of the world. However, it is not strictly an ontological construct in that it does not claim that its worldview is the truth (although this is how it is usually viewed today). Religion, on the other hand, is definitely an ontological as well as epistemological construct, and also (very importantly), an ethical/moral one(unlike science). Religion is based not on a "scientific" view of the world, but rather operates through intuition and feeling, uniting man to his environment and giving it a transcendent meaning to himself. In a way, religion is much more akin to art that it is to science.
I think that what has happened is that science has become the "orthodox" (one could say default) ontological system in the modern western world. What this causes is that many people try to justify their religious beliefs through science (as happens all-too-frequently in the U.S, a prime example is "intelligent design") and thus end up making religion in general seem stupid. Religion, which is based in the supernatural, need not rely on the natural to justify itself, in my opinion. One cannot play backgammon on a chess board, or vice-versa.
In my opinion, science and religion actually compliment each other in many cases.
That being said, given that Europe is a predominantly Christian continent, much of the values and ethics of modern Europe (and Western civilization in general) are Christian in origin. Indeed, one could say that the "genealogy" of modern western ethics looks something like this:
-The Enlightment
-Renassaince humanism
-Classical (Graeco-Roman) Civilization
-Christianity