Posted by
The Interface on Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:04:44 PM
October 31, 1517, a lone monk walked up the steps of the church in Wittenberg, Germany, and nailed a single manuscript to the church door. In very short order, and long before the advent of the copier machine, copies flew through the city and eventually the nation, setting off what would become the Protestant Reformation, one of the greatest revivals in history (not there weren’t others who had helped set the stage prior to this). The manuscript’s content was in the form of 95 theses that revolved around errors Martin Luther found in the practice of the church of his day (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church), and in particular, the sale of indulgences. Boiled down to their essence, indulgences allowed you to sin with impunity as long as you paid the Church the necessary money to cover your sin. The transfer of the pecuniary elements was so efficacious that it was even considered retroactive in that you could affect the release of your loved ones from Purgatory into Heaven by the appropriate purchase. Luther was accordingly incensed at this abuse of the people and their lack of biblical knowledge relevant to this practice, which eventually led to his effort to reform the Church. As history shows, however, the Church didn’t want to be reformed, truth having little bearing on the issues at hand.
Fast forward to 2008. Can anyone think of a situation today where one is said to be able to pay money that will allow you to engage in practice(s) that are allegedly damaging (whether or not they are is a separate issue) to something on the planet, but your money will make it all better?
Thinking…thinking…can anyone say, “AlGore?” Howzabout “carbon credits?”
How truly did the poet and philosopher George Santayana state that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” To which Alexander Hamilton aptly replied, “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.”
[Note: yes, I know Hamilton preceded Santayana by so long a time that they could never have had a conversation. The above juxtaposition is based on the content of their thought, not their temporal proximity. Please don’t comment on the impossibility of their having ever met one another. To do so misses the point entirely, thank you very much.]