Whom Can You Trust?

The following is a summary and excerpt from a recent newspaper column by David Hasey:

James Madison, in the “Federalist Paper #51” expressed this sequence of ideas: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. He concludes that since neither is the case we must have governments and that they must have a system of checks and balances in order to function well. In effect, he is saying that since we are not divine, and therefore can’t be counted upon to always do what is right, we need a government. At the same time, since those who govern are also not divine, we must have a system of checks and balances to keep them from abusing their power. Alternative political parties, other branches of government and regulatory agencies fill this role in society. Madison goes on to say that “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” There are too many people throughout history who have abused their position in government for Madison to be optimistic about the future.

But if ethical responsibility and public morality have gone by the wayside, a carefully designed system of limited government with checks and balances is jeopardized. As John Mark Reynolds noted in a recent article “Without morality on the individual level, no laws, contracts, or rules will help our society. Bad men will always find a way to cheat.” Without a moral sense, there is nothing within a person to which he can hold himself accountable. The only deterrent becomes the fear of getting caught. As one’s power and prestige increase even the fear of exposure diminishes. This leads to the corrupting atmosphere, whether in ancient Greece or modern America. As a society continues to lose its moral stance, there will be less and less to keep people from acting badly.

The technical sophistication of legal safeguards against the abuse of power by those in government relies on ethical convictions for their power.

Which Darius?

Over the course of Persian history, there have been several kings named Darius. The most significant are:

Darius the Great, who lived until 486 B.C., and is also known as Darius I. He is mainly known for his ill-fated attempt to militarily punish the Greek city-states, especially Athens, because a couple of them had helped Aristagoras, who was a leader in the Ionian colony city of Miletus, when he rebelled against the Persians who had annexed most of Asia Minor and were demanding tribute payments from these Greek colony cities. This attempt by Darius to punish Athens was defeated at the famous Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C.

Darius III fought against Alexander the Great, and was assassinated by one of his own officials in 330 B.C.

Darius the Mede is recorded by Hebrew historians as conquering Babylon. Due to obscurities in translation and transliteration, this reference is somewhat unclear; it could refer to Darius the Great, or it could be a way of referring to Cyrus; it could allude to one of several kings of the Medes; it could also indicate Ugbaru-Gubaru, who was a military leader of the Medes. Yes, that is a real name.

There are a number of other kings and leaders named Darius in Persian history, but these are the most important.

What Was Hammurabi Thinking?

Consider these interpretations of Hammurabi’s legal code: His main interest is in preserving his society. He’s not trying to change anything, start anything new, or end anything old. He’s got momentum in his civilization, and his goal is to keep it going strong. Babylon was around for several centuries before and after Hammurabi, so he’s in the middle of a good run. So we look at one of his laws not as a moral statement, but as a principle for keeping a society strong. Any society that consistently acts outside of his laws will dissolve into chaos – at least, that’s what he thinks. Hammurabi is not interested in morality. He’s not saying that a certain action is “wrong” or “evil” – he’s simply saying that he wants a community that is capable of existing into the future and not destroying itself. Think about the difference between “good vs. evil” and “legal vs. illegal” – this is the difference between morality and legality. I also think that Hammurabi is not terribly interested in religion. True, he mentions some magic and mystic topics in his laws, and the laws are carved on a tablet that pictures the Babylonian sun god Shemesh, but if we examine the logic of the laws themselves, they are more political than religious. Hammurabi’s society was certainly interested in myth and magic, which is very different than our modern conception of religion as a relationship with a deity. A society embracing myth and magic includes, in the case of Mesopotamia, the concept of a “fertility religion” – a belief system centered on ways to make crops grow, and make the livestock robust. Remember that famine was a real and serious threat. So persuading the sky god to give rain, and the earth goddess to make plants grow, was the main goal of “fertility religion.” This still falls under the heading of “myth and magic,” because the goal is to manipulate – to make something happen. Our more modern concept of religion, by contrast, centers on communicating with a deity – worship, prayer, conversation – and serving a deity.

Gin and Tonic with Lime

Yes, if you're enrolled in our high school's Humanities program, you're too young to legally purchase or consume a Gin and Tonic with Lime, but you're old enough to learn about its historic origins.

Starting in the 1750's the English managed India for almost two hundred years. Unaccustomed to living in that part of the world, with its own weather and wildlife, British soldiers were susceptible to contracting malaria. Their physicians encouraged the continuous consumption of small doses of quinine, a medication used even today to prevent malaria.

But quinine tastes very sour, and isn't something that the men wanted to take frequently.

Mixing quinine with carbonated water, the physicians created "tonic water" - you can buy it today in every grocery store. This tasted a little better, and so the soldiers were more likely to drink it.

In order get them all to drink it, however, the tonic water was mixed with gin, the favorite drink of the English soldiers! The British military had also long encouraged the consumption of limes to prevent the scurvy, a disease resulting from lack of vitamin C. So, to complete the beverage, a twist of lime was added.

By the early 1800's, the drink was well-established among the English living in India. As they finished their years of service and returned home, they brought the recipe with them back to Britain. It was no longer needed to prevent malaria, but the taste had become popular.

The War Between Athens and Sparta

The differences between Sparta and Athens didn't stand in the way of a confederation, when the Persian empire threatened them. But after the victories at Salamis and Plataea, Sparta did not join the Athenian maritime federation. The Spartan warriors were too intent on not endangering their position of power on the Peloponnesian peninsula. They had there not only subjugated the Messenians, but also forced most of the other city-states into cooperation in the Peloponnesian league. Sparta and Athens both had now brought a large number of city-states behind them, and competed for the hegemony in Greece.


Starting in 431 BC, the two powers led war against each other. Because Athens had the strong fleet and much money, Pericles and most of the Athenians thought that they could attain the ultimate hegemony in Greece. The Spartans had neither a fleet nor money, but announced an inflammatory goal for their war: all Greeks should be free and independent - specifically from the oppressive Athenian mastery over the maritime confederation. Because both sides had many allies, and wanted to win unconditionally, almost all Greeks were soon enveloped in a long and bloody struggle. Finally, the Spartans even worked with the Persians, in order to build a fleet also. Athens was weakened, as shortly after the war's beginning, many people died of a plague. After that, victories and defeats alternated. Finally, Sparta defeated Athens at sea. The city was starved, and had to surrender in 404 BC.

But it became clear in the next century that actually both powers had lost. Sparta could maintain its new leadership position in Greece only with violence, and even then not continuously. The continuous oppression of the majority of the inhabitants in their city weakened the Spartans too much. And even democratic Athens could not win its old power back again.

What Type of Liberalism?

The original wave of liberalism was led by thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith in the 1700’s. This became known as “Classical Liberalism” and emphasized the freedom of the individual. Several centuries later, we are confronted with what is often called “New Left” Liberalism. How are these two sorts of Liberalism different? We will see that the word “Liberalism” can refer to very different schools of political thought.

Originally, liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith. For them, the ultimate desideratum was maximum individual freedom under the benign protection of a minimalist state. The size, power, and role of government were to be kept to a minimum, to prevent it from controlling individuals and thereby reducing their freedom. A free market would be good for the poor, as it offered them opportunities, instead of keeping them locked in poverty. The freedom of association guaranteed that civil society would be a free and open space occupied by voluntary groupings - neighborhoods, clubs, sports teams, political parties, any kind of voluntary gathering - independent associations of citizens who pursue their own interests and ambitions free from state interference or coercion. Classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil, or simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly. Civilized people have disagreements, and those who participate in a parliamentary democracy have arguments: classical liberalism is based on this fundamental insight - individuality is more valuable than unity. An ideology of individual freedom and democratic government - the result of parliamentary debate and majority rule - gave birth to the true civil rights movement in the 1960’s, when Martin Luther King declared that we should judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. Freedom of speech, religion, the press, and thought are part of the package of classical liberalism.

This sounds good. So why would anybody oppose it?

A different breed, the New Left Liberals, arose because of well-intentioned desires to promote “the common good” in society. For example, cigarette smoking is bad, so should we impinge on the liberties of individuals to deter or prevent them from smoking? By doing so, we will, after all, help them to be more healthy, and save the rest of society from paying the medical bills involved. Another example is the economy: people will suggest that the government can alleviate the suffering of the poor by setting maximum and minimum prices for certain products. Certainly we all want to help the poor. Or maybe we can make a more harmonious and peaceful society by asking people not to voice certain opinions.

Out of good desires - for public health, or helping the poor, or reducing hate in society - people are tempted to violate the first principle of civilized society: to protect individual freedom. Even if we know cigarette smoking is harmful, we must allow individuals to do it. Even if we guess that certain economic measures might help the poor, we must allow individuals to make their own decisions with their property and money. Even if holding serious moral beliefs makes some people uncomfortable, we should not attempt to stop those who engage in ethical meditations.

History teaches us about the bad results of good intentions: the Prohibition Era was based on a good desire to prevent alcohol-based problems, but gave rise to more crime. Stalin’s Soviet Union wanted to create a classless utopia for workers, but ended up creating artificial famines to start millions of freethinkers to death.

There is no goal which justifies compromising the freedom of the individual. That is the essence of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Classical Liberalism.

An Example of How a Simple Question Becomes Complex

Few things in life are as simple as they should be. For example, one can ask whether the famous Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev is a Christian. That should be answered with a simple “yes” or “no” — but it isn’t. When we start to examine the historical evidence, it quickly becomes a very complicated issue:

Gorbachev was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church as a child. He campaigned for establishment of freedom of religion laws in the former Soviet Union. All of which would make you think that maybe he’s a Christian. But Gorbachev has also expressed pantheistic views, saying, in an interview with the magazine Resurgence, “Nature is my god.”

Remarks by Gorbachev to Ronald Reagan in discussions during their summits, made the President deeply intrigued by the possibility that the leader of the Evil Empire might be a “closet Christian.” Reagan seems to have seen this as the most interesting aspect of his meeting with the Soviet leader in Geneva.

At the end of a November 1996 interview on CSPAN’s Booknotes, Gorbachev described his plans for future books. He made the following reference to God: “I don’t know how many years God will be giving me, [or] what His plans are.”

Gorbachev was the recipient of the Athenagoras Humanitarian Award of the Order of St. Andrew Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on 20 November, 2005.

On March 19 2008, during a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of Saint Francis in Assisi, Italy, Gorbachev made an announcement which has been interpreted to the effect that he was a Christian. Gorbachev stated that “St. Francis is, for me, the alter Christus, the other Christ. His story fascinates me and has played a fundamental role in my life.” He added, “It was through St. Francis that I arrived at the Church, so it was important that I came to visit his tomb.”

However, a few days later, he reportedly told the Russian news agency Interfax, “Over the last few days some media have been disseminating fantasies — I can’t use any other word — about my secret Catholicism, [...] To sum up and avoid any misunderstandings, let me say that I have been and remain an atheist.” In response, a spokesman for the Russian Orthodox patriarch Alexei II told the Russian media: “In Italy, he (Gorbachev) spoke in emotional terms, rather than in terms of faith. He is still on his way to Christianity. If he arrives, we will welcome him.”

So what does Mikhail Gorbachev really believe? As you see, the answer isn’t simple.