Re: About "rights" again (was RE: Disbelieving in belief - a variant

From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 15:58:22 MST


Lee Corbin wrote:
> Was that a psychological necessity for them? If instead they
> had abandoned belief in natural rights and a Divine Approval,
> would they have been able to pull it off? (You see, I believe
> natural rights to be fictitious entities, and suppose instead
> that only legal rights actually exist, and that these exist
> only in a social contract---as Charles was saying.)
>

The meme they were competing with was the Divine Right of Kings.
So it wasn't just a psychological necessity for them--it was a
memetic necessity for mindshare. Where does the DRoK originate?

I'd put it back at least as far as "In Hoc Signo Vincit"--Constantine's
claimed vision-leading-to-conversion in which he saw a blazing cross
in the sky and was told by the Christian God to whup the heathen butt.
I'm not sure if he saw the words in Latin or the Greek equivalent, or
if he made the whole thing up as great PR.

I kind of think the whole (monotheistic-) God & country thing has all
been downhill from the time Constantine started doing his thing. Kill
for Christ. Now there's a meme that has worked overtime.

MMB

PS: I seem to have been using a lot of Latin lately.
The above means "In this sign I conquer".
He had all his men-in-arms paint it on their vestments and shields.
I'm told they made a lasting impression.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST