Consider the words of H.L. Mencken "The Sage of Baltimore":

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Mencken was a great critic of American democracy, such as it was in his time, and still is. He was a prescient man, who also wrote:

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know
— Ciceronianus

I am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi? — ENOAH

It would depend, I suppose, on whether they maintain that what they believe or know was revealed to them by something equivalent by to the one, true, all-knowing God who created the universe.

Ah well. I'm just a lawyer who reads a lot, but I have a blog as well.

Ironically, this is an image of God that is often criticized by the Patristics, some of the big Medieval Latin theologians, and many contemporary Catholic philosophers. The Catholic philosophy space is quite vibrant, and so it's always surprising to me how this doesn't seem to trickle down into the lower levels of religious education. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know little of the Patristics, though they seem interesting. Christianity, I think, has always had difficulty trying to incorporate pagan philosophy into its doctrine. The effort to do so began, I believe, when the early Christians tried to answer the criticisms of such as Porphyry and Celsus. I think a great part of the difficulty was due to the insistence that Jesus was not only divine, but "one in being with the Father." The more that one claims that God is "the god of the philosophers" the less it's possible to accept Jesus as God, and also that he is the God of the Old Testament.

I was raised Catholic. My experience of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is similar to that of 180 Proof, though my time in Catholic schools was limited to 10 years. I feel rather nostalgic about the Church of my youth. It's an aesthetic fondness related to the ritual and appearance of its ceremony and the physical churches themselves. That was before the Church became bland, at least here in the U.S.

The Church and Christianity in general was and I think still is a remarkable and fascinating hodgepodge of certain ancient pagan philosophical and religious beliefs and Judaism, but I stopped being a believer long ago. I find it hard to believe in any transcendent, creator God, and especially the personal, hectoring, demanding and strangely needy sky-gods of the kind that are worshipped in the West. I find the ancient Stoic view of God compelling--an immanent God which is immersed in Nature, and the active, creative essence of the universe.

I do think you might endear yourself to an Orthodox Jew though with your insistence that the laws are immutable and unchanged since the day Moses walked off the mountain, as historically inaccurate as that might be. I — Hanover

I wasn't aware the Ten Commandments had changed. What do they say now? Or have they added more, to make up for the five which were lost when Moses dropped the third tablet, according to Mel Brooks?

It is no coincidence that our own modern system has similarities to that. We have a document (i.e. the Constitution) that we hold out as holy, we appoint special priests to interpret it, and we alter and form its meaning around daily disputes. You don't need to change the text of the Constitution to change the meaning and religions do the same with their documents. I suppose in most secular systems you have a mechanism to change the text of the law and perhaps you have the same in certain religious systems (for example the Mormon President's ability to decree law) or you have workarounds (like Papal infallibility allowing the text to mean whatever he says by definition). — Hanover

I think we agree on many things, but I don't think this analogy works. I know next to nothing about Mormon doctrine, and know enough about Catholic doctrine to understand that papal authority to state or make infallible pronouncements is limited and has been very rarely exercised, but the Constitution itself provides it can be amended and describes how that may be done. It would be as if the Ten Commandments stated that they may be altered provided appropriate steps were followed.

It is strange to note the execution of Christians, and then claim that the Christians were executed because they were intolerant, not being willing to venerate pagan gods. "We had to kill them because they intolerantly refused to worship our god and/or emperor." This argument will always fail for a modern mind. It would be like saying, "We had to burn the heretic at the stake because they intolerantly refused to accept Christian dogma." This is backwards. — Leontiskos

.

The followers of pagan gods didn't take the position taken by Jews and Christians regarding God or religion. A pagan didn't claim that the god they were worshipping at any particular time was the only god, nor did they believe that all must worship that god and no other. That wouldn't occur to a pagan, nor was it the position of the Empire in pagan times.

Christians wouldn't tolerate any god but their own. That's the intolerance I refer to, and is what led the Christian Roman Empire to forbid all pagan worship, and led Christians to kill Hypatia and others, destroy pagan temples, etc.

Thank you. That's a significant point.

Where does your virtue of tolerance come from? The American Revolution? The French? Romanticism? The Enlightenment? The humanist revival? Christendom? The Roman Empire? Greek philosophy? The Hebrew scriptures? — Leontiskos

Specifically as to a comparison with the Abrahamic religions, I refer to the tolerance of other religious traditions in the ancient Mediterranean before and while Christians began stamping them out. Members of the Mithras cult, or that of Isis or Cybele, for example, weren't prohibited from worshipping other gods or becoming initiates of other mysteries. Rome was generally tolerant of all forms of worship provided they weren't believed to be a danger to its rule. It didn't require that all people within its empire worship Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Jews were considered peculiar, but were allowed to worship their peevish god and avoid the homage demanded by the Roman state as they wished until they revolted against Roman rule and were ruthlessly repressed or exterminated.

The so-called persecutions of Christians have been wildly exaggerated, and were in response to actions, or we might say omissions, of believers deemed to be threats and a rejection of the Roman state, e.g. the refusal of military service or refusal to make an offering generally in form of incense to the well-being of Rome or the reigning Emperor, a problem pagan believers didn't have as they weren't intolerant

Religious debate doesn't lead to absolute rules. Much is debated and remains debated. Rules are also subject to change.

But you know this, so I don't know why you say otherwise. — Hanover

What about the rule you shall have no other god before God, or, for that matter, the other rules described, significantly, as "The Ten Commandments"? Are all of those subject to change? There may be varying interpretations of some of them (that "graven images" bit may have made some uncomfortable, and be considered to apply only to certain images, for example). Some may be ignored to suit our purposes, as in the case of the ones that say we shall not kill, or commit adultery. But the rules remain, don't they? It's one of the "rules" of the Abrahamic religions, I think, that the rules they impose may merely be given lip service when they become inconvenient, but they don't change.

That is, of course most religions consider themselves correct, but so do you. — Hanover

Well, it's not quite the same thing. What religions consider correct are different from what I consider correct. Religions may maintain it's correct, e.g., that God exists, that God has certain characteristics, that God should be worshipped in a particular way, that other Gods don't exist, that God wants us to believe in him, that God wants us to behave in a particular way, that if we don't do so we sin and are subject to punishment.

What I consider correct is somewhat less imposing and absolute. And even subject to change.

The right fears godless rule while the left fears godful rule. — Hanover

Which seems to make the what right wants good and what the left wants bad doesn't it? What could be bad about godful rule, and good about godless rule?

genealogy of modern tolerance — Leontiskos

I'm uncertain what you mean by this.

This is quite the broad statement, describing the essence of all Abrahamic religions, from Shia Muslims, to Mormons, to Church of Christ, to Reconstructionist Jews and so on. — Hanover

I suppose those sects, if the recognize Abraham as a prophet and believe in the Covenant, would be Abrahamic, but don't know enough about them to say whether they are or not. I suppose it's possible that they don't teach they are "the way, the truth and the life", but understand that traditional Judaism, Christianity and Islam do.

Is there a problem with God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason? — Athena

I doubt it. The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so (a felicitous bit of rhyming, if I don't say so myself).

Not Brazilian, no. But all too aware of the conceit of many of my countrymen in the USA.

Just a matter of time until we start seeing it here in God's Favorite Country.

Sport fencing is odd, not at all like traditional fencing is thought to be. There are some clubs, though, that teach traditional European martial arts with swords, including sabres.

I participated in some tournaments. Unfortunately, the rules are such that that the typical bout, particularly in sabre fencing, consists of two rushing each other and a single clash of swords--no swordplay, no parry and riposte, except now and then. Speed is all important; very little skill.

I tried Googling "swordswomen" and a bunch of anime characters was the result. Even so, it seems Hungary's women's team won the sabre fencing championships in 2022.

Attila was one of the great figures of the late Roman Empire in the West; Flagellum Dei (the Scourge of God). I'm not familiar with the poet.

I've heard great things about Budapest and would love to visit. When I was younger, I fenced using the sabre, recreationally. Hungarians are legendary swordsmen, especially with the sabre (swordswomen as well, no doubt).

You certainly shouldn't be mocked for being from Spain, and I didn't intend to do so. I hope to return there, as I only spent a brief time in Barcelona, and there is much I'd like to see.

The fact I think that Spain is "no better generally" than most other nations doesn't mean I think it worse than other nations. Most nations are no better generally than others.

I'm not aware of any nation which hasn't had dark periods in their history.

I'm not sure what you mean about Goya. In his time, Spain was made a battleground by France and England acting in their own interests. That "dark period" was imposed on Spain by other nations.

You shouldn't assume my aversion to the conquest and subjugation of indigenous people means I'm adverse to all nations (which includes my own) who engaged in that practice.

Oh yes! You are very fond of my country! How can I think otherwise? — javi2541997

A person can't be fond of Spain unless also fond of bullfighting and adverse to poking fun at a Genoese? You surprise me. I suppose admiration for such as El Greco, Velasquez, Goya, Picasso, Cervantes, Santayana, Las Cases, and Ortega y Gasset (sometimes)--not to mention the famous Romans born in Spain, like Seneca, Trajan (optimus princeps) and Hadrian--doesn't quite match up to enthusiastic attendance at la corrida.

Neither was I, frankly. But "Google" Rome and Iron Age and there it is.

Sorry. I had in mind the so-called Roman Iron Age, which it seems is believed to have taken place between 1-400 AD or CE.

Sidenote, if you are referring to Roman aqueducts and concrete, those were from after the Iron Age, which ended in the 7th century — Lionino

I disagree. The first aqueduct was the Aqua Appia, erected in 312 BCE. Others were built during the Roman Republic, third to first century BCE. Roman concrete was available during the Republic as well. The most impressive use of it, in my opinion, was in the construction of the Pantheon during the reign of Hadrian in the second century CE.

I suppose no answer is a kind of answer, though a poor one.

As I say, I'm a man of the West, but we shouldn't limit ourselves. Here's what another Spaniard said:

Non sum uni angulo natus, patria mea totus hic mundus est (Seneca, Epistles 28.4)

Things were in such a mess during the creation of Christianity it's hard to tell what was going on.

There was the conflict between Paul of Tarsus and James the Just; other miracle workers and holy men were wandering about, like Apollonius of Tyana, who was said to have ascended into heaven; the Gospels conflict in several respects, most problematically for traditional Christians in the case of Jesus saying the kingdom of heaven shall come within the lifetimes of those listening to him (Luke); the similarity between Christian sacraments and those of other religions. The early Church Fathers claimed that devils inspired the communion meal engaged in by members of the cult of Mithras because they knew Christianity would have the same sacrament. Then there was the dispute between the followers of Arian and Athanasius, regarding whether Jesus was of the same substance as the Father, and other early versions of Christianity like Christian Gnosticism and Montanism and Marcionism (later declared heresies). And the heresies kept coming.

It's fascinating, but a god-awful mess.

Am I among the "numerous members" of this forum you mention?

In fact, I'm very much a man of the West, and am fond even of Spain, except for its time under El Caudillo; nor am I a fan of the Hapsburgs.

Western civilization is admirable in many respects, but sadly it's been tainted by the exclusive and intolerant Abrahamic religions.

Like medicine, modern infrastructure and agriculture, and technology in general that allowed them to multiply further than it could ever been possible within the Iron Age. — Lionino

Well, consider what was written by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of the conquistadors accompanying Cortez, regarding the Spaniards first impression on arriving at the city of Tenochtitlan:

"When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments (...) on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? (...) I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about."

Later, of course, the conquistadors destroyed that city and much else. It's estimated that about 8 million of the indigenous people died in the immediate aftermath of the Spanish conquest primarily due to the diseases they brought with them (so much for medicine). The Tudor court in England, during the 16th century, constantly moved from place to place when the accumulation of human and other waste made whatever location they were at unbearable. I suspect that things weren't all that different in Spain at that time. At Versailles, in the 17th century, it was common for courtiers and others to urinate and defecate in convenient corners or under staircases, there being no facilities to use.

Don't be too hard on the Iron Age. Roman infrastructure during the Iron Age, particularly when it comes to the use of water but in other areas as well, wasn't matched in Europe until the 19th century.

No, not on that point. And just to be clear, my other comments weren't intended to address what seems to be your acceptance of Christianity, which is something I can't do, but rather what appeared to me to be a failure to recognize the enormous debt Christianity owes to the ancient pagan world.

It also teaches that truth is higher than any human social organization on Earth (apart from churches, which typically have some claim to infallibility), which is the ultimate nullification of any other cult. It also teaches that while on Earth, we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, which runs directly counter to our cult instinct to attack and kill the stranger and take what is his. It is my belief that the Christian cult was a prerequisite for the scientific method to occur, because it asserted objective truth beyond any Earthly authority. The teachings of loving one's neighbor as one's self were probably also the prerequisite to equality under the law and individual liberty. What has been more typical in other times and places was that a person's true value was not different than his perceived social value. — Brendan Golledge

None of this is peculiarly Christian, I'm afraid. These "teachings" as you call them were arrived at by pagan philosophers long before Jesus was a twinkle in his father's (or his own or and his own, if you're a fan of the Trinity) eye. While Christianity was relentless in extinguishing much of pagan civilization, it was also exceedingly eager to assimilate pagan philosophy and, in certain respects, religions.

For my part, I'm with Dewey in believing that we only think when confronted by problems or situations we wish to resolve. What we consider problems or wish resolved will be determined by what we value in many cases, obviously.

Spain's arrival was a great thing for Mexico, for example, otherwise in a case of isolation from the rest of the world¹, they would not be too far past the Iron Age today and likely still be conducing human sacrifices. — Lionino

Indeed, Bartolome de las Cases provides a contemporary description of the many great things done for the indigenous people of Mexico by the Spanish after they arrived.

CBT, regularly used as I understand it to treat trauma and with some success it appears, is based in large part of Stoicism. So, I wondered what was meant when it was claimed Stoicism fails to by "address trauma."

provided they accept a natural right, — Count Timothy von Icarus

A belief in natural rights may inspire or inform the decision to adopt a law (or not adopt one, or enforce or not enforce a law). Until there is a law, however, that belief is nothing more than a belief there should be a law, or a right recognized by law.

I think suicide is always wrong. — NotAristotle

Why?

I think it is better to address trauma rather than "objectifying" it. — NotAristotle

And how should we "address trauma"?

The concept of natural rights is a fairly modern development; say, from Grotius forward. As has been pointed out, it's very much a product of the Enlightenment.

Natural law, however, is different. The Stoics were the greatest proponents of it in the ancient world, probably. Natural law and natural rights are often considered one and the same, but are different.

According to natural law theory as developed in antiquity, from the study of nature and humanity's place in it we can infer that certain conduct is in accordance with nature, and human nature is such that we can infer that we have certain duties towards each other. Right conduct, duty and justice were far more important than individual rights. We should treat each other in a certain way, yes, but we didn't have the right to be treated in a certain way as we believe that to be the case now. It's a point of view I think preferable, personally. It's not all about ME and what I'M entitled to or owed.

For example, slavery was common in the ancient West. Slaves didn't have the right to be free, but they could be granted freedom. However, the Roman jurist Ulpian wrote that the the condition of slavery was contrary to nature. Nature tells us that humans should be treated equally, i.e. that we should treat each other as equals and shouldn't enslave each other. The focus is on what we should and should not do rather than on what each of us is entitled to.

Won't they mean something in that we can point to the evil being done in their violation? Rights, as the defense of the good, seem like they should exist outside of any given system of laws. Molesting children isn't just bad in contexts where it is illegal, or only in cases where there will be punishment. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The law is one thing; morality is another. A law will be a law regardless of whether it's moral or not; regardless of whether it prohibits immoral conduct or allows it by not regulating it.

Molesting children should be illegal (prohibited by law). If it isn't, though, then it won't be a crime. It won't be subject to punishment by the state, nor will it be subject to civil action. In such cases, we may say "there oughta be a law." We may say what we claim are universal rights, or natural rights, should be recognized by the law, but if they're not that's all we're saying.

So, documents or pronouncements like the U.N. Declarations of Human Rights, or the Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted by the French National Assembly, may indicate what people think should be the case, be need not be the case. The Consulate and the First French Empire weren't very faithful to the Declarations of the Rights of Man in practice. Many members of the U.N. disregard the Declaration of Human Rights with some frequency.

Oliver Stone's film on the subject bears witness to this. — Wolfgang

If you believe Stone's film is accurate, my guess would be you think De Palma's The Untouchables is as well.

Be that as it may, my feeling is there are no rights which aren't legal rights. Unless claimed universal rights are enforceable by law, they may be proclaimed by anyone and will mean nothing, in fact. It happens certain legal rights are useful in limiting the power of government. Others can be misused, and promote little more than selfishness. It becomes a question of judging which rights should be made law.
We haven't judged well, in many cases. That's all, folks.