The past two installments discussed the “rights” Americans are supposed to possess. The debate over the right to life versus the right to die has become increasingly acrimonious and our politicians and ethicists are straining to define when a fetus starts to deserve this right, and under what circumstances an adult has the right to end a life that he/she has come to regard as intolerable. In addition we are in the process of exporting these “human rights” all over the world and our administration feels compelled to force those on other cultures regardless whether or not they want them.

I grew up at a time and in a country where instead of “rights,” obedience to parents, teachers and the law was stressed as well as one’s duty toward society at large. These concepts were reinforced by a conscience that produced a sense of guilt and shame when one could not fully adhere to them, as well as rapid, effective punishment. Now they have not only become obsolete but are regarded with disdain. But when people don’t have a conscience where the ultimate judge of good or bad behavior is God, and when even the word conscience has been replaced with a nebulous “super-ego,” the fabric of society begins to tear. This is what we are witnessing in our country and why there is now a “culture war.” This is supposedly fought between what is erroneously called “people of faith” versus the equally misnamed “progressives.” In an inversion of historical precedent the Democrats, who in general have always espoused more socialistic types of ideas, which would have entitled them to the color red, are now painted in blue and the Republicans who stood for private property and limited government are the reds. Since the “people of faith,” which is the euphemistic title of the extreme right wing of the Republican party and the “progressives” who represent the extreme left wing of the Democrats make up when taken together probably no more than about forty percent of the total population, the majority of us is currently not properly represented by our political system. Nevertheless our politicians pretend to know what’s good for us and judges have no problem inventing new rights that are supposed to guarantee and increase our well-being if not happiness.

For a non-aligned detached observer of the political scene this brought up the question where do all these supposed human rights, which are proclaimed so vigorously, come from. One might obviously think that they are anchored in the Constitution but one will search in vain for a right to abortion or equal societal rights for homosexual couples to those who have married a member of the opposite sex. The founders of the republic would never have entertained such thoughts; therefore a right to “privacy” had to be stretched to allow for the former and a right to “equality” for the latter.

So where do all these rights, which are so liberally bestowed upon us by a benevolent Congress and Judiciary really come from? The answer to that question makes an excursion into history inevitable, regardless of how irrelevant the younger generation thinks history really is. The Declaration of Independence tells us,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed: that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it . . .”

The Declaration goes on to list the sins George III had committed against the colonists by his tyrannical rule and that in view of his transgressions against the laws of free people, the colonies “are, and of right ought to be free and independent states.” As a first generation immigrant to this country I was not steeped in American history and although the slogans of equality, life and liberty have since been taken up by other nations, pursuit of happiness seems to have remained uniquely American and I was curious how that phrase became enshrined in the founding fathers’ first official document.

Paul Johnson informs us in “A History of the American People” that the task for writing the declaration had been delegated to a committee of five men who agreed that Thomas Jefferson was the best person to do so and after he had produced his draft version the committee was justly delighted. Benjamin Franklin changed only the words “sacred and undeniable” to “self-evident,” which removed any taint of what one might call “churchiness.” Since the members were also products of the Enlightenment they shied away from the word “God” although no one had any doubt as to who was meant by the Creator. But in as much as these “self-evident truths” and “unalienable rights” were not seen as such by the mother country, which still believed to some extent in the divine right of kings, war was the inevitable outcome. This outcome was foreseen and the language of the document was crafted to be a perfect rallying cry for which to pledge one’s “life, fortune and sacred honor.”

It is true that George III who suffered from a serious illness, which is believed to have been porphyria and may have intermittently affected his reasoning faculties, behaved as an autocrat in his islands and regarded himself above Parliament. His ministers were appointed by the Crown and Parliament, not too dissimilar from our current Congress, was expected to rubber stamp the decrees and procure the money for whatever purposes George deemed appropriate. It is also true that the colonists labored under severe economic hardships in terms of taxes, import duties and restriction of trade, which could be conducted only via British ships. The colonies were supposed to procure the raw materials which were to be shipped to England and the manufactured goods thereof were re-imported to America. This was, of course, a prescription for disaster because free born Englishmen would never stand for such limitations to growth. As another tidbit of British rule one might add that South Carolina had petitioned against further importation of slaves because the colonists felt that they might become too numerous for them to control. Their request was denied because the slave trade was simply too lucrative to be abandoned. If we look at the situation of 1776 objectively it is apparent that apart from liberty there were serious difficulties in acquiring and keeping one’s property at home rather than having it siphoned off to England. Thus, the American War of Independence was also, to a considerable extent, about money. But since people are in general not inclined to undertake the pledge mentioned above simply for Mammon they had to be inspired with a creed of honor and divine sanction.

This leaves us with the question where and when did this divine right of the people originate and in searching for the answer I am indebted to William and Ariel Durant’s “History of Civilization.” The “divine right of kings” had received a severe blow in 1649 when the executioner’s axe separated Charles I’s head from his neck. He had unwisely, thought that he could rule as absolute monarch but was mistaken on two counts. First he didn’t have the money to raise an adequate army equal to that of the Parliament under Oliver Cromwell. Secondly his Catholic wife and his lenient treatment of Catholics had raised fears of a counter reformation where not only blood would flow but where there would also be a massive redistribution of wealth from Protestants to Catholics.

Nevertheless, it was not necessarily an easy matter for the Parliament to execute their king, rather than using some other expedient to curb his power. The civil war between the forces supporting the king and those in favor of his removal had led to his capture and Parliament had to decide what to do. The fascinating aspect in connection with our topic is that Parliament in January of 1649 consisted of only fifty-six members, from the original 650 that had been voted for in 1640. The rest had fallen victim to repeated purges during the civil war. This remainder consisted, in the overwhelming majority, of Cromwell’s soldiers and other Puritans who had no love for the king’s Catholic leanings. It was this “rump parliament” that declared it had been “treason for a king to make war upon parliament” and called for his execution with a majority of six votes. The House of Lords rejected the ordinance stating that the Commons had no authority for such a bold statement,” whereupon the Commons resolved the people were, ‘under God, the original [sic] of all just power’; that the Commons as representing the people, had the supreme power in this nation.’”  It is worth while considering that “the people” whose supreme power was asserted consisted of 31 men, because 25 of the delegates had either voted nay or abstained.

One hundred-thirty five Commissioners were then appointed to try the king and when one of them told Cromwell that they had no legal authority to do so Cromwell had enough of the affair and cried, “I tell you, we will cut off his head with the crown upon it.” When the votes were tallied 59 judges had voted for execution. Although this did not amount even to a simple majority the divine right of kings died on that day, that of “the people” was born, and Louis XVI of France would have been better off, had he remembered the precedent. So how did “the people” rule thereafter? Cromwell became Lord Protector and ruled as an autocrat just as harshly as Charles had done except in the name of God and the Puritan – Calvinistic – religion. Since this did not allow “merry old England” the fun it had been accustomed to in former times the people soon soured on the benefits they had expected from the new regime. Wars with foreign powers continued, this required taxes even beyond what Charles had demanded. “Taxation without representation or parliamentary approval, arrest without due process of law, trial without jury, were as flagrant as before; and rule by the army and naked force was still made more offensive by being coated with a religious cant. ‘The rule of Cromwell became as hated as any government has ever been hated in England before or since.’”   

Like Caesar, Cromwell refused the crown when offered and personally continued to live the simple life. But unlike Caesar he managed to escape several assassination attempts and died wracked with illness in his bed in 1658. Nevertheless, in good monarchical fashion he appointed his son Richard as his successor. Similar to some sons of anointed monarchs he proved to be incompetent and had no desire for a life of politics. Within a year Parliament was recalled; Richard resigned and went to France. Another year later the son of Charles I crossed the channel in the opposite direction and started his reign as Charles II. The monarchy was restored and universal happiness reigned again in England as well as on the Continent over this turn of affairs.

But the story which has a direct bearing on today’s America is not over. After the death of Charles II his son inherited the throne as James II. His pursuit of personal happiness as well as for his people soon discovered the pleasures of absolutism and in addition he started to re-Catholicize the country. The birth of a son who was to be brought up in the Catholic faith was the last straw and the Protestants turned to William of Orange for help. He was happy to comply and arrived in England with an army. James resisted, was outgunned and fled to France. But Parliament had learned its lessons. Prior to being crowned as William III former members of Parliament assembled in a Convention (February 1689) and promulgated a “Declaration of Right” which was accepted by Parliament in December of that year as the “Bill of Rights,” which in turn became a model for the Americans not quite a hundred years later. Like our Declaration of Independence it listed the trespasses of James II in language fairly similar to what was used in America, but then entrusted the government to the new king under the proviso that he would also remove forever any taint of Catholicism from his realm. Although we keep talking in America of our “Bill of Rights,” there was originally the assumption that the Constitution would suffice for that purpose. The proponents of this idea were overruled and the Amendments to the Constitution took its place, but even in that document “pursuit of happiness” no longer figured.

We might stop at this point with our historical excursion had not the past month riveted all eyes on St. Peter’s Basilica and the changing of the shepherd of Catholics around the world. The fact that this magnificent edifice was actually the proximate cause of the Protestant Reformation is hardly appreciated. Leo X (1513-1541) had inherited upon his ascendancy to the throne of St. Peter full coffers and a clergy that was in part fonder of the good life than the monastic virtues of chastity, poverty and obedience. Instead of putting a stop to the abuses that had occurred within “the body of Christ,” as a Medici, son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, Leo’s personal preference was also for “la dolce vita.” Since he was not only bishop of Rome but also in charge of Florence he spent lavishly on the arts as well as on wars to keep the Papal States intact from the rapacious French. Furthermore, there was the construction of the Basilica which had been started under his predecessor because the original church, built under Constantine in the fourth century, had fallen apart. But to create as magnificent a renaissance building as we now see required a great deal of money since the builders and artisans did not work pro bono. Within two years the Vatican was bankrupt and money had to be extracted from the reluctant emperor, kings and other potentates. This obviously did not sit well with the rulers of the various countries and provinces who would rather have kept their money at home than sending it to Rome in order to support a splendid life-style.

Since one couldn’t get money for what were regarded as frivolities a Crusade against the Turks was proposed. The German Emperor Maximilian and Francis I King of France were supposed to lead the army, while England, Holland, Spain as well as Portugal were to provide the navy. The goal was to sail into the Bosporus take Constantinople and get rid of the Turkish danger to Christendom once and for all. The danger was actually quite real because a few years later Soliman the Magnificent (also spelled Suleiman) arrived with an army of about 270.000 men before the gates of Vienna (1529).  For the benefit of those who felt a few years ago that Saddam’s rhetoric with “the mother of all battles” was somewhat over the top I am going to translate here, from Wien Chronik, excerpts of Soliman’s proclamation which demanded the surrender of the city. He introduced himself as,

“We, Sultan Soliman, God on land and water, Almighty Emperor and Sultan of Babylon [now come several other regal titles] . . . king of precious metals in India, a preserver of the gods and sovereign and guide from sunrise to sunset. Guardian of Muhammad’s earthly paradise, providing comfort and salvation for Turks and heathens, and a destroyer of Christendom; a protector of the sepulcher of the crucified god and king of Jerusalem:”

Thereafter he promised Ferdinand of Austria, who was at that time also in charge of Bohemia, Moravia and parts of Hungary, “I shall, god on earth, send you and all your helpers in the most miserable way we can think of to your death. You might as well know that we shall shortly besiege and occupy all of Germany – our empire - with our might.”

 Well, it didn’t quite work out that that way. Soliman lost the battle for Vienna and a second attempt by Kara Mustafa in 1683 also failed. Christendom in Europe was saved for the next several centuries only to be endangered now by secularism and a new, albeit peaceful, incursion from Turkey. When one is aware of these historical facts it is apparent why America’s desire to have Turkey speedily admitted to the European Union is not met with equal enthusiasm in Europe. They were very happy to have finally driven “the Turk” completely out of Europe - apart from a foothold in Constantinople, renamed to Istanbul - after the First World War. Although the Europeans current Christianity is not reflected in visits to the churches this does not necessarily make them any fonder of Muslim ways and customs which are infiltrating their countries. This makes it also understandable that the new Pope Benedict XVI will not look with favor on a speedy integration of Muslim Turkey into what he feels should be at heart a Christian civilization, which needs to be brought back into the fold. A conflict with America in this area seems foreordained. Europeans feel towards Turkey just about like Americans feel toward Mexico: good neighbors yes, but everybody should stay on their own turf. Ronald Reagan’s, “mi casa su casa” is not in the cards for the immediate future.

But Leo’s Crusade against the Turks did not materialize in the first years of his rule because the various potentates had their own quarrels and preferred to fight each other rather than a common enemy. Thus by 1517 Leo was again in dire financial straits. The money that had been collected from Germany for the Crusade did not arrive in Rome and especially “Frederick the Wise” of Saxony lived up to his title. He withheld the contributions until there was actually a Crusade. No Crusade no money, which left Leo high and dry. But the Church was not quite without resources because it could always extract funds from the faithful by promising remission of sins for an outstretched palm. These “indulgences” were reasonably lucrative and in March of 1517 Leo issued the most famous of all in order to get his building funds, which led to the irrevocable split of Western Christianity. The Archbishop of Mainz, who had bought himself the office from the Pope, entrusted the task of collecting the funds for St. Peter’s to the Dominican monk Johann Tetzel. But in his marketing zeal the good friar promised more than he could deliver. He not only promised remission of past sins but also of all future ones and at death “the gates of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of delight shall be opened.” The idea that by buying this indulgence one could then live merrily to one’s heart’s content without contrition was already tough to swallow for the true believers but Tetzel apparently went even a step further. He promised that one could also release the souls of loved ones who were lingering in purgatory with a financial contribution which led to the ditty, “As soon as the money rings, the soul from purgatory’s fire springs.”

This is where the drama began. Frederick the Wise refused permission for Tetzel to peddle his indulgence in Saxony. Nevertheless, some curious citizens of his realm visited with Tetzel at the border and then brought these indulgences to the Professor of Theology at Wittenberg University, Martin Luther, to have them examined for theological correctness. When Luther, a man of strong convictions and equally strong language, saw these documents one can readily imagine the expletive he used. When this was relayed to Tetzel he called Luther “immoral” and the fight which continues to this day was on. There was simply no way that Luther would tolerate such outlandish promises especially in regard to souls in purgatory, for whom even the Pope could only pray rather than redeem. This required a reply and he issued it in form of the famous 95 theses, nailed to the doors of Wittenberg’s Cathedral, which served as a bulletin Board. By doing so on October 31 he ensured wide circulation because on November 1, All Saint’s Day, it was customary to put holy relics on display for the people to view, which always drew a crowd. To make absolutely sure that his opinions would be heard he not only had a German translation circulated among the people but he also sent a copy to the Archbishop of Mainz, Tetzel’s immediate superior.

The theses were meant as an invitation for discussion to clarify the power of indulgences but since both sides to the conflict stood their ground no agreement could be reached. For the German princes this was a gift from heaven because now they had a good local theological excuse for no longer having to send their money to Rome but could keep it under their own wing. “Los von Rom,” became the rallying cry under which the Reformation was fought with fire and blood. It might have fizzled had Leo understood the seriousness of the problem because disobeying the Pope was not an easy undertaking and the various Christian kings had serious reservations, since it involved risking one’s immortal soul. But things became a great deal easier when Henry VIII’s wife, Catherine of Aragon, failed to deliver a male heir to the throne. For Henry this was a necessity because the house of Tudor was still on shaky ground and could be challenged at any time. Petitions for annulment of the marriage were sent to Rome but Leo refused. This was not due to obstinacy but he was in the hand of the German Emperor Charles V who had driven the French out, and Charles was also the nephew of Catherine who would not tolerate this insult to his aunt. Thus, there was a stalemate and when Anne Boleyn arrived on the scene Henry fell head over heels in love with the maiden. He became obsessed with her and when it came to a choice between the Pope and sex, with the intent of procuring an heir, and there was in addition the precedent in Germany that one could disobey the Pope but remain a good Christian the outcome was obvious. Kings no longer needed papal and, therefore divine sanction; they could receive their mandate directly from heaven and could run their kingdoms to their hearts content as heads of the local Church, which was subservient to their wishes. Henry’s pursuit of happiness in the arms of Anne also soured when from her offspring only Elizabeth survived and Anne had to pay for that failure with her blood under the executioner’s axe. The rest is, as they say, history.

What does all of this teach us? It is quite apparent that the pursuit of happiness by secular or ecclesiastic princes tends to lead to profound unhappiness of a portion of their constituents and in most people of the countries they make war on. We have also seen that there is always a handy excuse by invoking the name of God for their enterprises and when God is out of favor it becomes the “Will of the People” that provides the sanction. Whatever government people live under it is always a small oligarchy that feels itself entitled to rule in the name of the governed. This is swept under the rug and one can bask in moral superiority over the benighted other.

In private life the pursuit of happiness is equally fraught with complications. If one looks back at one’s own life one can count the unmitigated experience of happiness in moments, the experience of pain and distress in days, months or years, and run of the mill tedium interrupted by some joy in decades. If this were not so there would be no market for all the religions as well as self-help books all of which pursue the same goal: to increase the individual’s contentment if not outright joy in this tumultuous world human beings keep creating for themselves.

Happiness can be likened to a butterfly; one can pursue it and it will elude one’s net. Even if we catch it what do we do? We can spear it and put it into a collection to show the dead fading beauty prideful to others. But what have we really gained thereby? On the other hand we can sit still and the butterfly may, out of its own volition, settle for a while on one’s leg or arm. We can admire its delicate beauty and wish it well on its further journey. There are moments in life when we experience what is called the “Grace of God.” It is a sudden, spontaneous, and uncalled for sensation of a “yes” to the world combined with a sense of intense gratitude. This is what Schiller was talking about when he said “death is not too high a price for having lived one moment in Paradise.” The reasons why we are unable to hang on to those moments will be explored in the next installment.