Kuyper's Synthesis Essay

Mencius once again underscores the people’s role in the heavenly mandate and declares their right to either abide by or revolt against a ruler. Mencius claims that “rulers only possessed the Heavenly Mandate to rule so long as they retained the hearts of the people . . . For Mencius, the human heart was ‘endowed with the ability to judge between right and wrong’ and constituted ‘a bridge linking man with Heaven’” (Glanville 331). Mencius’s belief in the ability of the heart to determine right or wrong gives the common people authority and power to identify whether a ruler is worthy of the mandate and the favor of the heavens. Consequently, it is imperative that the ruler retains the people’s support as negative sentiments can lead to dissent and organized revolt amongst the people. This emphasis on the intimate and powerful link between the people and the heavens is translated in Mencius’s concept of the “ultimate supremacy of the people.” Mencius declares that “The people are of supreme importance; the altars to the gods of earth and grain come next; last comes the ruler” (Glanville 332). Mencius prioritizes the

In the case of the Crusades, the true jurisdictional limitation of the Church of Rome’s authoritative order was infinite beyond that of state or feudal control. It would seem that an “infinite jurisdiction” by any entity is unjust! The only possible rationale for having such unlimited authority would be an innate belief in “entitlement” or “unrestricted sovereignty.”

The world of the ancient Near East believed in a creator deity as member within a plethora of deities; that is, there was no supreme being. Within this plethora, each deity held a specific responsibility, representing such matters as order, justice, love, and truth, to name but a few. Among ANE inhabitants, according to Philip J. Nel, “a normative principle of justice was maintained as part and parcel of the created universe. The human life-world and the order of nature were seen as inextricable entwined.” It is not surprising, therefore, how ancient civilizations understood justice to be a concomitant attribute of a deity within a pantheon of deities; a pantheon where members had origins and, in most instances, were familial in nature. According to their understanding of creation, ancient civilizations held views on social and economic justice as a means that would “facilitate the service of the community to the divine world.” Nel observes that, “The principle of justice was . . . not so much regarded as a system of moral order, but rather the assumption of an existing/created autonomous design/order which should be upheld and adhered to in all sectors of society.” The Sumerians, and the Egyptians, serve as examples.

As a result of the scientific revolution, people continued to question the truths of the government, as natural law grew. Joan Fichte, a German philosopher, repels the types of rulers as they “have no rights at all over our freedom of thought, you princes; no jurisdiction over that which is true or false” (Doc 4). Before the Scientific Revolution, the people believed what the government had told them, without any question. The natural law is now granting these rights to the people which is slowly nullifying the government's control over the people. As a result of the people questioning government, the people made changes to their government leaders way of ruling. Rulers used to be omnipotent in their rule, but the natural law constricts the rulers. English philosopher, John Locke, provides his views on rulers. If the rulers work in an unjust manner than the people should use ¨forces . . . nothing but . . . unjust and unlawful force; whoever makes any opposition in any other case draws on himself a just condemnation both from God and man” (Doc 2). If a ruler is abusing his power, the people can stand up to him in a way that is not morally correct. Knowing that the people can oppose the government leaders, the leaders have to be more judicious in their decisions and consistently lead in a moral manner. Not only do the people have strong disapproval but God is

The governing legal, moral and religious codes of ancient civilizations were written and enforced by a minority that exercised power and authority over the majority. This minority consisted of priests, rulers and elites with established power and influence in society. In these codes of early civilizations, there was an overarching emphasis on maintenance of structure and order in society. Simply put, while these codes reflect the conditions, needs and values of the times in which they were formulated, they also unveil the authors’ agendas to preserve their power by maintaining the status quo. Therefore, these codes acknowledge and uphold the prevailing social, gender and racial inequalities as natural conditions of human existence and reveal the manifold biases present in early civilizations.

| What is the ideology supporting the concept that a society's ruler is God's direct representative on earth to administer justice and punish evil doers?Answer

Kramnick and Moore write their book to establish an understanding of were God should be in society and government. They use interpretations of men from the history of the United States to gather knowledge on how to regard religion in our government. They give a timeless solution to an understanding of what our government is trying to establish. They propose

The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State A thoughtful, well-written, and scholarly look on the segregation of church and state, the book ( The Godless Constitution) is a clear criticism of the attempts by religious rights to bring to an end the separation between the state and the church, which had been established by America’s founding fathers. The book opposes that such attempts have often been informed by erroneous and imprudent interpretations of the U.S. history. Isaac Kramnick and Laurence R. Moore, the authors of the book, are both well-known scholars in American politics and religion.

Numerous present day countries, such as the United States, are firm on the separation of religion and state, as a means of preventing prejudice and bias against marginal religious groups. However, such attempts to separate religion and state rarely stop religion from influencing basic law or the decisions made by people in power because religion creates a foundation of thought in our choices and judgements. This is evident in classical civilizations because those in power depended on religious beliefs and celestial beings. Moreover, religion highly influenced social classes, giving individuals such as kings and emperors an advantage. Finally, religion was used to maintain moral and ethical codes within the societies, thus influencing their

At the time, many thought that the church and government went hand in hand. So, the church was the law and the government enforced the beliefs of the church. Obviously, things have changed and now the government enforces and creates the laws. The man

Behind the so called ‘’God’’ a totalitarian government, that controls people is hidden. The government uses politic, science

Justice has been misperceived to go hand and hand with rules in which a society must conform to, mostly in due part to the enlightenment era. In the case with the Romans, the laws they established, especially early on, dealing with the spread of Christianity has been interpreted with a sense of disgust for the unfair treatment targeted towards Christians, and later on to those of other faiths. However, I argue that, Roman law, when concerning religion, was used to strengthen the identity of what it meant to be Roman. Furthermore, as Rome, the political institution, was beginning to decay, as an act of acclamation, the formulation of Roman Laws allowed Christianity to be a main means of connection to what it meant to identify as Roman. Utilizing various primary sources, it is evident that faith had been gradually accepted as the dominant form of unity and law, beginning with Emperor Diocletian to Emperor Theodosia, even among emperors, the Catholic faith had shown that all men were under God, and under God they were all Roman.

When the boundary between Church and state is clouded, men may begin to “believe they are performing a bold action in killing anyone who does not accept its gods”

A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone

In ancient times, it was said that a ruler should behave according to the standards and regulations set forth by the word of God. There was an absolute standard of justice that people had to follow. The ruler or sovereign was taught to act morally in order to be successful and gain spiritual happiness; morality and politics were unified, religion played an important role in the decision making. A ruler had to act accordingly based on the standards and moral ideas of ancient civilizations and the government, this meant, recognizing that there was an absolute right and an absolute wrong. The ruler and society as a whole, in ancient times, were preoccupied with their afterlife and wanting to achieve a better spiritual life by acting