If by "positive" you're referring to a system of positive law, which system are you referring to in the context of a right to "daily bread, health care, and other aspects of human dignity"?
By positive law, I mean we are each and severally charged by God with providing food for the poor, water for the thirsty, etc. I'd be happy to provide Scriptural references if you need them.
As for Divine right, what authority are you referring to here as the basis of a right to daily bread and health care? What Scripture? What Tradition?
The Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church as taught by the popes and bishops in union with him since the Ascension of our Lord.
Which "Divinely-ordained social order" are you referring to? During the Late Middle Ages, we had a disintegrating feudalism and a nascent capitalism. Which do you prefer?
Feudalism, as I made clear in my original post.
In terms of a political order, we find political entities such as kingdoms, republics, and empires (among others). Why no valorization of empires or republics on your part?
The Empire was the ultimate earthly expression of the Divine social order. I do not "valorize" republics because they are based upon the idea of popular sovereignty, which is anti-Christian.
Do you mean the "Catholic" and medieval social order that had polities that were so weak that Viking, Muslim, and Hungarian raiders (and armies!) could attack at will for centuries?
Yes, just as our postmodern social order suffers from attacks from Islamic raiders and armies today.
Where famine and plague ravaged urban poor and serfs in the countryside alike?
Yes, just as famine and plague ravage our urban poor and propertyless "serfs" today.
Where those self-same urban poor and serfs had very little of what we would recognize as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Not to mention no King's Justice, which they couldn't afford.
Yes, just as the poor cannot afford the high cost of justice in our "enlightened" society.
(NB: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not a Christian tradition; it is a slogan of the anti-Christian "enlightenment".)
Where local economies were so cash-starved that elites either squeezed their serfs for what they could get; raided, robbed or cheated their neighbors; or financed armies for the purpose of obtaining slaves to be sold "down south" to labor-hungry Islamics?
Have you ever cracked open a history book? Yeah, those bad old elites of the middle ages! It's a good thing our God-fearing, Bible-believing modern elites never squeeze their "serfs" to line their own pocketbooks! It's a good thing our capitalism-believin', free-enterprise-worshippin' elites never raid the public treasury, rob the working man, or cheat the system for their own personal gain! I'm so glad the feudal system is gone so that we no longer have gigantic corporations investing in repressive overseas regimes for the purpose of obtaining wage-slaves to be sold "down south" to labor-hungry sweatshop owners!
With all due respect: you, sir, are ignorant. I cannot have a reasoned discussion of the facts of history with someone who is unaware of those facts -- meaning you. Get back to me when you've read enough to have a grownup discussion on this topic.
Today's episode of Separated At Birth:
"Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah....This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'"
--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, 23 January 2005
By positive law, I mean we are each and severally charged by God with providing food for the poor, water for the thirsty, etc. I'd be happy to provide Scriptural references if you need them.
By positive law is meant man-made law, not the Divine Law of Scripture. Once again, which positive legal system are you referring to here in your defense of this "right"?
As for Divine right, what authority are you referring to here as the basis of a right to daily bread and health care? What Scripture? What Tradition?
The Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church as taught by the popes and bishops in union with him since the Ascension of our Lord.
Please specify which parts of Scripture and Tradition tell us that (to use your words) "daily bread, health care, and other aspects of human dignity" are a right. My memory might be faulty, but I don't recall Our Lord using a rights-based discourse in the Gospels to speak of charity and our duty to help a neighbor in need.
Which "Divinely-ordained social order" are you referring to? During the Late Middle Ages, we had a disintegrating feudalism and a nascent capitalism. Which do you prefer?
Feudalism, as I made clear in my original post.
Thanks. I just wanted to be sure.
In terms of a political order, we find political entities such as kingdoms, republics, and empires (among others). Why no valorization of empires or republics on your part?
The Empire was the ultimate earthly expression of the Divine social order.
The unified, Western, Eastern or Holy Roman Empire? Got any particular emperor in mind?
Also, if "the Empire" is really so primary, then what do you make of Gregory VII's relationship with Henry IV?
I do not "valorize" republics because they are based upon the idea of popular sovereignty, which is anti-Christian
I don't think that La Serenissima, for example, was based upon popular sovereignty as we Moderns would think of it. I think it was called a "mixed" republic.
In what sense is popular sovereignty, under your definition, anti-Christian?
Do you mean the "Catholic" and medieval social order that had polities that were so weak that Viking, Muslim, and Hungarian raiders (and armies!) could attack at will for centuries?
Yes, just as our postmodern social order suffers from attacks from Islamic raiders and armies today.
Well, the Vikings and Hungarians have been quiet for a while, and despite the Muslim terrorist attacks the past 30+ years I've yet to see slave raiders on US soil or armies of conquest or plunder. Or are things really that different in your part of Texas?
However, all that's beside the point. Your essay is arguing that the medieval social order is better than what we see today, and thus commendable. Not that things nowadays are just as bad as they used to be. That is, since I am not presenting a defense of Obama's America, why are you attacking what I am NOT defending and wasting your time arguing that "the more things change, the more things stay the same"?
Where famine and plague ravaged urban poor and serfs in the countryside alike?
Yes, just as famine and plague ravage our urban poor and propertyless "serfs" today.
We are discussing the USA, aren't we? I see no plague or famine hereabouts, unless it's the plague caused by the dreaded Hyperbole Virus.
Where those self-same urban poor and serfs had very little of what we would recognize as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Not to mention no King's Justice, which they couldn't afford.
Yes, just as the poor cannot afford the high cost of justice in our "enlightened" society.
Give me a break. There's a big difference between not having the money to hire a good lawyer and living in a system where, in relation to your particular lord, no remedies were available and where the exercise of justice was often a kind of property from which the lord or king could derive profit.
(NB: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not a Christian tradition; it is a slogan of the anti-Christian "enlightenment".)
I must admit that I've heard this argument before, usually from paleocons who enjoy sneering at the DOI in general and TJ in particular. I guess it all depends upon how sincere you believe Locke's Christianity to be.
Where local economies were so cash-starved that elites either squeezed their serfs for what they could get; raided, robbed or cheated their neighbors; or financed armies for the purpose of obtaining slaves to be sold "down south" to labor-hungry Islamics?
Have you ever cracked open a history book?
More than a few. Have you ever cracked open one that wasn't published by TAN?
Yeah, those bad old elites of the middle ages! It's a good thing our God-fearing, Bible-believing modern elites never squeeze their "serfs" to line their own pocketbooks! It's a good thing our capitalism-believin', free-enterprise-worshippin' elites never raid the public treasury, rob the working man, or cheat the system for their own personal gain! I'm so glad the feudal system is gone so that we no longer have gigantic corporations investing in repressive overseas regimes for the purpose of obtaining wage-slaves to be sold "down south" to labor-hungry sweatshop owners!
Once again, I thought that your position is that a "Catholic" and medieval social order would be BETTER than our modern "Late Capitalist" society, not just comparable. You're not arguing here as a pro-"feudalist," but as an anti-capitalist. Still waiting for your defense of the feudal social order.
With all due respect: you, sir, are ignorant. I cannot have a reasoned discussion of the facts of history with someone who is unaware of those facts -- meaning you. Get back to me when you've read enough to have a grownup discussion on this topic.
I fail to see how someone who immediately calls me "ignorant" is treating me with "all due respect." I find your mock politeness amusing.
I presented several historical facts about the general character of the medieval social order, facts which you could have disputed but have not. Instead I have been treated with irrelevant comparisons with the modern social order, irrelevant since they neither address the facts I have presented nor advance your position that the feudal social order is somehow better.
I also admit that I find it funny how someone who doesn't know the difference between positive and Divine law, who uses an anachronistic rights-based discourse when referring to the Gospels, and who is apparently unable or unwilling to discuss the history of medieval Europe, suddenly declares me ignorant of basic history, ill-read, and childish.
This strikes me as typical behavior for you, B-Chan: when you have nothing to say in rejoinder, you declare victory and advance to the rear! LOL!
Fare thee well, oh valiant and brave Christian Knight!
This nation was founded as a Christian Nation based on Calvinism. In a review of the founding documentsAnti-Roman Catholic but certainly not anti Christian.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The bible was the most often quoted document.
The second most were Calvin's writings.