Christianity & The Rule of Law, Democracy, and Rights

[Jagella]

The Discovery Institute is a Christian apologetics think tank that targets what it calls "scientific materialism." On its website, the Discovery Institute has this to say in its mission statement:

...the Judeo-Christian culture has established the rule of law, codified respect for human rights and conceived constitutional democracy. It has engendered development of science and technology, as well as economic creativity and innovation.

What might seem to be surprising to many of us is that Christianity has fostered any of these cultural developments. So...

Question for Debate: Does Christianity justifiably get credit for the rule of law, democracy, human rights and science?

Doing a little bit of research, I've found that the answer is not really. The rule of law, and democracy, as examples, predate Christianity and were first developed by Greek philosophers like Plato. The ideal of human rights postdates Christianity by many centuries and emerged in the philosophy of John Locke. Finally, science predates Christianity by thousands of years with the development of agriculture, astronomy, and mathematics.

If anything, Christianity as an apocalyptic sect has acted as an impediment to these cultural developments. Who needs the rule of law, human rights, and democracy when an all-powerful dictator is ready to put an end to the world as we know it? Such a tyrant cares little for voting or who has rights when he makes all the decisions. And what good is science when this god's magic can circumvent at any time what we expect from nature?

[dio9]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

If you study history , without Christianity there would be no western civilization as we know it. Christianity was the inspiration and base for law democracy and rights through the middle ages. Earlier than that Christianity was the unifying element under writing late Roman Empire' law and rights, the law of late Rome was Christian law. Christianity was also the base for English democracy. The Mayflower compact the foundational document for american democracy was created by Christians. So yes Virginia , for all the faults of individual Christians, Christianity is the base of american and western civilization law rights and democracy.

[1213]

...If anything, Christianity as an apocalyptic sect has acted as an impediment to these cultural developments. Who needs the rule of law, human rights, and democracy when an all-powerful dictator is ready to put an end to the world as we know it? Such a tyrant cares little for voting or who has rights when he makes all the decisions. And what good is science when this god's magic can circumvent at any time what we expect from nature?

I think democracy is not very good. It is a way for majority to oppress minority. I like more of the idea that people should be free, without any governments.

[Jagella]

If you study history , without Christianity there would be no western civilization as we know it. Christianity was the inspiration and base for law democracy and rights through the middle ages. Earlier than that Christianity was the unifying element under writing late Roman Empire' law and rights, the law of late Rome was Christian law. Christianity was also the base for English democracy. The Mayflower compact the foundational document for american democracy was created by Christians.

All you're doing here is posting assertions that contradict what I documented in the OP. Can you cite your sources? I'd also like an explanation regarding how Christianity gets credit for what you are saying here. For example, what's democratic about Christianity? Who voted for Jesus?

So yes Virginia , for all the faults of individual Christians, Christianity is the base of american and western civilization law rights and democracy.

Actually, I think that individual Christians should be credited for their accomplishments rather than Christianity. Galileo, for instance, accomplished what he did in spite of his Christian beliefs rather than because of those beliefs.

[Jagella]

I think democracy is not very good. It is a way for majority to oppress minority. I like more of the idea that people should be free, without any governments.

So are you saying that Christianity does not get the blame for democracy? While I agree that democracy is far from perfect, it sure beats a theocracy like that envisioned in the New Testament.

[1213]

I think democracy is not very good. It is a way for majority to oppress minority. I like more of the idea that people should be free, without any governments.

So are you saying that Christianity does not get the blame for democracy? While I agree that democracy is far from perfect, it sure beats a theocracy like that envisioned in the New Testament.

I am not sure what do you mean with New Testament theocracy. In Biblical point of view Jesus is king who tells that we should love others as ourselves, do good and not evil. Why would you be against that? Also, I think Jesus wants us to be free, because:

"If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

[Mithrae]

Doing a little bit of research, I've found that the answer is not really. The rule of law

As your link suggests,
There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, the book of Deuteronomy imposes certain restrictions on the king, regarding such matters as the numbers of wives he might take and of horses he might acquire (for his own use). According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented...."[14] The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England.[15]

In fact a good case can be made that Deuteronomy presents a primitive version of separation of powers, with priests functioning as judiciary (Deut. 17), 'Moses'/Deuteronomy and later prophets as a legislature passing on divine laws, and king as the executive ultimately subject to those laws. Whether or not such a system was ever actually implemented hardly matters; even as a purely theoretical framework, it's fairly impressive for a work written some two or three hundred years before Plato was born.

(It's also worth noting that in the book of Daniel it's asserted that the Persian kings also were ultimately subject to established laws, though offhand I can't vouch for it's accuracy; it's notoriously inaccurate on some other points of Persian history.)

[Jagella]

I am not sure what do you mean with New Testament theocracy.

The "New-Testament theocracy" is when Jesus will reign as king with the authority to command us to do things like love others as ourselves.

In Biblical point of view Jesus is king who tells that we should love others as ourselves, do good and not evil.

That's the New-Testament theocracy.

Do you need Jesus to tell you to treat others well? I don't. I can figure that out on my own.

Why would you be against that?

I think it's better for us to choose to be good rather than be told to do so. Give people credit for their own goodness.

Also, I think Jesus wants us to be free, because:

"If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

If Jesus wants us to be free, then he'd let us come to our own conclusions.

[Jagella]

In fact a good case can be made that Deuteronomy presents a primitive version of separation of powers, with priests functioning as judiciary (Deut. 17), 'Moses'/Deuteronomy and later prophets as a legislature passing on divine laws, and king as the executive ultimately subject to those laws. Whether or not such a system was ever actually implemented hardly matters; even as a purely theoretical framework, it's fairly impressive for a work written some two or three hundred years before Plato was born.

You're missing the point. For one thing, Old-Testament injunctions cannot be credited to Christianity. In addition, King David we are told was found guilty of both murder and adultery, but contrary to the law of Moses, he was never stoned to death. His being spared is a clear violation of the rule of law.

So to prove your case, you need to demonstrate that some dogma appearing in the New Testament codifies the rule of law and that the New Testament is the origin of the rule of law. By citing the Old Testament as telling us of some rule of law actually proves my case that Christianity does not get credit for the rule of law.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by dio9]

If you study history , without Christianity there would be no western civilization as we know it.

This is basically a tautology. Western civilisation as we know it includes all those influences from Christianity. Take them out, and we wouldn't have western civilisation as we know it.

Christianity was the inspiration and base for law democracy and rights through the middle ages.

Citation needed. I'm especially interested to learn just how one gets from Christianity, with its authoritarian God-king...to respecting the will of the demos.

Earlier than that Christianity was the unifying element under writing late Roman Empire' law and rights, the law of late Rome was Christian law.

These "Christian" laws...where they exclusive to Christianity, such that if one wasn't a Christian, one couldn't have these laws? I take it then that say, China at the time didn't have laws against theft and murder? I mean, surely that's what we'd expect to see for your claims to be true, right?

The Mayflower compact the foundational document for american democracy was created by Christians.

Didn't it ever strike you as a bit odd that the Puritans who wrote that document (a branch of Christianity) were fleeing religious persecution from King James I, another Christian...and then they proceed to write, first sentence no less, they were loyal subjects of this very same king?