Tukhachevskii,
Thanks for the in depth response. I wish I had the time to review all the references you mention. I am familiar with Skinner having read his Foundations of Modern Political Thought and Liberty before Liberalism. The other references will go onto my “to do” list.
I also agree that over time the meanings of words and statements change to fit the needs and desires of those using them (including us). It is very difficult to put ourselves in the shoes of those who lived in the past and fully comprehend what they meant. The problem is even more pronounced for Westerners as we see European history as the sine qua non of political thinking.
Yes, I do see Catholicism and Protestantism as two separate religions at least from the point of view of political interpretations. They were different enough to go to war over (maby less in the minds of the leaders who were trying to avoid papal taxes but at least in the minds of the followers who fought and died). In my mind that makes then as least as different as as Judaism and Islam - all claiming a common source but diverging in at least a significant enough way to die over.
I wish I had the time to post a more in-depth response. I would start by arguing that the entire idea of a “Divine right” of kings, as opposed to a god king, as some other societies would view their political leaders, creates a defacto separation of church and state. That the passage of two keys (or two swords) was simply a recognition of a belief already prevalent in Roman times that the church and the state represented action in two separate spheres of human activity.
Instead I will ask a question relevant to the thread:
“Why is religion so closely tied to political legitimacy?” Even where there is a separation of church and state many laws are based in religious beliefs. Politicians swear oaths before God. Congress opens with a benidiction. What is the connection? Why is it important to our mortal lives?
Bookmarks