Lessons from the Roman Conquest of the Britons
Nothing forthcoming should be alleged to be in advocacy of theocratic government, a fusion of political and social power repressive to those minds not disposed to believe in the invisible or the not easily demonstrable, and an arrangement of civil government laid to waste during The Enlightenment. But it should be noted the role religion plays in reinforcing the bases of moral authority in the state.
The following is a passage from the Scottish philosopher David Hume’s A History of England. A relatively early section on The Britons, strewn with citations from eminent first hand sources like Julius Caesar and historians of the caliber of Tacitus and the Venerable Bede, makes explicit the necessity of crushing the religion of a conquered people in order to make them obedient and useful servants of the state.
Firstly, let us consider the role of the Druids among the Britons in preserving the social and political order. In this caste resided considerable power, and its functions were varied and vital to the tribe. [Continued at Rogue Government]
Like this:
Posted on November 30, 2011, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.
The Sage
Steve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
hairybeast
Mo K.
Sting the Away
Rudy
Voice of Reason
Anthony Rogers
Vérité
Isaiah's Cry
danagall
Hal Jordan
The Rat
Aquinas Shrugged
jackcurtis
a west texas view
pino
Cultural Limits
Regalo Di Spine
Tokyo Tengu
Short Little Rebel
AWOL Civilization
SeePamBlog
rogueoperator
provider4many
jimmullen1
thomaspaine2nd
badoracle
ljponders
weeicemon
Daniella Nicole
plainansimple
Very, very good piece!
Any significant religion is always either a servant or a threat to the state since it competes for the same needs and tries to impose its own goals. That has always been so; this piece lays out a segment of historical tapestry that shows it clearly.
The attitude of our governors toward religion is clear in their program of anti-Christianity while appeasing Islam, a convenient hypocrisy using Moslem, too few to worry about, to further reduce Christianity, weakening but still a force to reckon with.
Bad times have strengthened churches in the past as well as finished them off. The ongoing degradation of the economy seems likely to bring the churches to one or the other condition…
Well, seems to me we have a choice between relying on a society with effective Christian values as American history has been, or one with only politicians’ promises to rely on, toward which America seems to be headed.
I know which seems the best bet to me, so far anyway…
Well, seems to me we have a choice between relying on a society with effective Christian values as American history has been,
America turned away from those Biblical values when it freed the slaves. Are you advocating it go back to slavery, as the Bible advocates?
Leviticus 25:44-46
Being overly snarky, mocking, and troll-like will quickly get your comments stricken from the record. You are close to that edge. You get one warning…
You seem to be attempting to suppress disagreeement here.
It’s a simple case.
i, JC is advocating “returning to teh Christian values this country was founded on” (paraphrase).
ii, Slavery is a Biblical value.
iii, America was founded on slavery.
iv, Logically, JC ishould be advocating returning to slavery.
Now, that’s not “snarky” or “mocking” – that’s simply pointing out where his argument leads. I realise you don’t like it; I find it interesting that you immediately threaten the use of power to suppress people pointing out stuff you don’t like.
Are you really that special? Really? That’s an actual argument that you are putting forth as some sort of logical reasoning? If that is true you are in far more need of some education and help than I am able to provide… Do you truly have no concept of what is meant when someone says “Christian values?” If so, then get off my blog, take a few months to educate yourself, and then come back and try to follow the debates and discussions of the day in an adult and reasonable fashion.
Are you really that special? Really? That’s an actual argument that you are putting forth as some sort of logical reasoning? If that is true you are in far more need of some education and help than I am able to provide… Do you truly have no concept of what is meant when someone says “Christian values?” If so, then get off my blog, take a few months to educate yourself, and then come back and try to follow the debates and discussions of the day in an adult and reasonable fashion.
Now, who exactkly is being snarky and mocking?
Which of those statements do you disagree with?
I’ve given you the reference – Leviticus 25:44-46.
Slavery is a Biblical value, and it’s one which was part of America’s founding values. If people are making the argument that we should be returning to traditional Christian values, they’re going to have to face the problem that slavery is one of those.
Why do you feel the need to resort to ad hominem rather than actually address the argument, Sage?
I found the historical content of this post quite fascinating but I do disagree with a point or two from the author. Let me explain.
Having discussed the events and given a degree of reasonable historical analysis, Rogueoperator proclaims that, “it is certain that the left’s socially engineered phenomenon of political correctness has made it a supposed affront to the sensibilities of the unbelievers and the nonbelievers to display the Christian faith. The current regime, like the Romans as they presided over the rebellious Britons, seeks to break the imminently conquered of their spirit by removing their moral and religious fonts of resistance, and to socially cow them into obeisance, and eventually, servitude. (underline mine).
I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise that over the past three years there has been a systematic attempt by the Obama administration to put an end to the Christian religion in the way that the Romans were forced to deal with the druids. The belief that this is in fact happening can only be thought of by someone who lives in a completely different world. To suggest that the ‘Red Armies’ of the administration are ransaking the relics in our churches and pouring over the membership databases in a gestapo-like froth belies all credibility.
Yet Rogue follows that statement up with a very reasonable and soundly worded statements that deserves praise when he says, “It is with inducements to luxuriate in the now at the expense of the necessarily harsher future, to distract oneself with idle pleasures as the state persistently and incrementally encroaches upon civil freedoms, and to gradually and all but imperceptibly shift the public sentiment in favor of the state’s domination of society and economy.
This statement has a lot of historical backing and correctly represents the current state of not only the U.S., but all of western civilization in the 21st Century.
I am hesitant to make religious arguments where none exist just for the sake of pandering to the right wing Chrsitians on the site. Furthermore, when you incorrectly make false historical assumptions, you open yourself up to the nonsensical religious and historical arguments of people like Anony-mouse.
Overall, good post and nice historical stuff. Carry on.
Furthermore, when you incorrectly make false historical assumptions, you open yourself up to the nonsensical religious and historical arguments of people like Anony-mouse.
Pardon me – are you saying slavery never existed in America, or are you saying it was never justified with appeals to teh Bible?
I’m saying it has little or nothing to do with the post by RogueOperator.
Now don’t get me wrong, I haven’t visited in some time and I find your brand of leftist obfuscation refreshing in this echo chamber. But your apples-to-oranges comparisons in topics ranging from socialist Sweden to religion are going to grate on ol’ Dave and get you censored. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
I might also add that your introduction of slavery into this debate was a transparently sophist attempt to get a rise out of the religious conservatives here. While you may have succeeded on some level, I see through your bullshit. Carry on.
“Ol Dave” enjoys intelletual debate. What he doesn’t like is Christian-baiting and sophmoric attempts at trolling and his patience for such waxes thin over time with certain individuals. Ignorance of the subject matter makes it virtually impossible to debate with certain people. Mr Mouse apparently has no concept of what “Christian values” are and what people mean when they use that phrase. He is just being difficult and snarky or intentionally ignorant and too mentally lazy to educate himself.
I might also add that your introduction of slavery into this debate was a transparently sophist attempt to get a rise out of the religious conservatives here.
On other threads here, I have seen “traditional values” cited as a rationale for denying equal rights to gays, such as marriage rights.
At some stage in the future – much sooner than you think – invoking “traditional values” in this way will be seen in much the same light as invoking “traditional values” to justify slavery. If the religious conservatives on this blog can’t see that, then they lack any imagination.
“”It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts…Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God – let him go to the Bible…I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation…Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments – in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere.”. – Jefferson Davis.
If you don’t see the parallel between that and the rhetoric spouted by the religious right here to support their own pet prejudices, then you must be willfully blind.
Now you are at least trying. Heh. Though your grasp and understanding of scripture is somewhat myopic.
Here’s some interesting commentary on the subject.
What Does The Bible Really Say About Slavery?
From your own cite:
—
Paul and Peter told converted slaves to be obedient, honest, and diligent in serving their masters, and they never offered them hope that their new faith would bring them emancipation in this life (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; 1 Pet. 2:18-21).
—
That says it all for Christian values. Any abolitionist movement after that is a deviation from Biblical values, as the pro-slavery conservatives stated at the time.
We are now far off topic.The heart of Christianity is to love your neighbor as yourself and to be good and honest to others etc. We are to hate the sin and love the sinner. The types of servitude described in the Bible bears no resemblance to the harsh and oppressive institution of slavery practiced in the New World, Jefferson’s protestations aside. We are all born free men, it is not the will of God that we oppress and enslave one another. How the Southern slaveholders treated the blacks (who were very often Christians themselves) was obviously in violation of how we are to treat other human beings regardless of their station in life or skin color.
How the Southern slaveholders treated the blacks (who were very often Christians themselves) was obviously in violation of how we are to treat other human beings regardless of their station in life or skin color.
And yet many current American Christians deny gays equal rights and treat them badly, pointing at the Bible for justification.
You do agree, Sage, that at that time, many Christians justified slavery through the Bible and their interpretation of it?
There is a very clear, no nonsense, no way to misinterpret, direct reference to how we as Christians are to view homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. You can play all the little games you want but there is no getting around it.
And even the simplest child understands the whole, tab A goes into tab B concept. Human anatomy is quite clear as to ‘what’ is supposed to go ‘where’ and what isn’t designed to accept certain things in certain areas. (: These are not difficult concepts and while some try to force deviancy and persersion down the throats of society in general there are still those who don’t excuse such behaviors.
So speaketh the preacher’s kid…
There is a very clear, no nonsense, no way to misinterpret, direct reference to how we as Christians are to view homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments.
And both the Old and New Testament clearly condone slavery – which you now say is against Christian values. Do you get the parallel YET?
You do realise that several Christian churches regard homosexuality as a neutral feature, performing gay marriages themselves, right? Many countries and several States in the USA regard gay marriage as an acceptable secular arrangement. And opposition to it is concentrated in the older generatins, with the younger generations more and more accepting of the idea.
What are you going to do when your attitude towards inequality for gays is regarded with the same disgust with which you might view the few remaining Christian Reconstructionists who still insist slavery should be reintroduced based on the Bible?
I answer only to God Anony-Mouse, not overly worried about what society may think of the Bible or the commandments and teachings that I am required to follow. I am the son, grandson, and great-grandson of ministers of the gospel and the Christian beliefs you so utterly despise will live on long after I am gone. I will anwer for my actions and beliefs someday to someone far more important than yourself or the whims of popular culture or societal fads. Your poor and incorrect attempts at analogies fail to strike the blow you seek to achieve. But thanks for playing. I do think we are done playing this game though.
I answer only to God Anony-Mouse, not overly worried about what society may think of the Bible or the commandments and teachings that I am required to follow. I am the son, grandson, and great-grandson of ministers of the gospel and the Christian beliefs you so utterly despise will live on long after I am gone. I will anwer for my actions and beliefs someday to someone far more important than yourself or the whims of popular culture or societal fads.
Just so we’re clear, you’re NOT quoting or paraphrasing Jefferson Davis or George Wallace there, right?
A point that the author may well consider is that the progressives have sought to replace one religious paradigm with others: environmentalism, all forms of vegetarianism and veganism, and to an extent the excessive emphasis on health minutia to the point of making people obsessed with it. All of it takes on the cloak of morality in the way it is practiced.
And as far as the Britons being conquered – even the Normans had to destroy quite a bit to get as far as they did – and they still didn’t take the Celts in any of their British forms.