If you read historians with some probity, you begin to realize there has never been a religious war. All wars are about real estate. We can start with the Bible, and the fights are about land, the promised land, etc.
Check out these sources:
The land itself is of no real value unless it is worked. And the war is over who gets to tax those who work the land. This is the Roman empire, and the heart of the "religious wars" of the Reformation. This is precisely the reason the USA has invaded the Middle East so many times. For a thousand years dying people bequeathed their property to the Church, and Rome became the recipient of astonishing transfer payments. Ultramontanes, the farther the more radical, rather resented their wealth flowing South, although in perfect conformity with prescriptive law. The farther North the more Lutheran.
In Islam, unused property may be homesteaded after three years (or is it after three years of homesteading title transfers? I am not sure...). In any event, this tracks the Western legal system of adverse possession.
I was attending lectures of the Byzantium scholar Dimitris Tsougarakis in which he noted at one point how Venetian Bishops were extracting rents from farmlands on Crete after the Venetians had taken the Island of from the Moslems who had taken it from the Byzantines. This reminded me of how Sicily is poor and crime-ridden since the rents flow to Spain, 200 years after they last owned it.
And again, the story repeats itself. Usury is introduced, wealth and power is concentrated in a few hands, life is miserable for the small farmer, the self-employed, and then the poeple welcome the conquering hordes and the hope of relief. Why produce when it will all be stolen?
So again it starts with usury, and goes from there.
And tying in the thread of how the religions gain land from donations, and then they work it on a rental basis like anyone else. Inheritance laws are prescriptive, and can be changed. So, how about an ethic that if you cannot work the land yourself, then it is homesteadable. If a Bishop in Venice cannot work farmland on Crete himself, then it is subject to adverse possession.
Property rights are absolute, but not inalienable. No one can take what is yours, but if you cannot work it, it is not yours.
People ask me so what do you do when you demonstrate usury does damage, and you are nonviolent? Do we make war on usurers? As both Islam and Christianity demonstate, we need no state. so assume that is gone. And religions are voluntary associations, and therefore nonviolent. So the task at hand is to importune the religions leaders to change their prescriptive law on property which would state land, even religiously owned land, can be be homesteaded if not actively worked by the "owner" for three years. The Islamic time frame sounds more just.
In this way religion might do good by more closely following the Will of God for peace, prosperity and justice.
Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.
Check out these sources:
The land itself is of no real value unless it is worked. And the war is over who gets to tax those who work the land. This is the Roman empire, and the heart of the "religious wars" of the Reformation. This is precisely the reason the USA has invaded the Middle East so many times. For a thousand years dying people bequeathed their property to the Church, and Rome became the recipient of astonishing transfer payments. Ultramontanes, the farther the more radical, rather resented their wealth flowing South, although in perfect conformity with prescriptive law. The farther North the more Lutheran.
In Islam, unused property may be homesteaded after three years (or is it after three years of homesteading title transfers? I am not sure...). In any event, this tracks the Western legal system of adverse possession.
I was attending lectures of the Byzantium scholar Dimitris Tsougarakis in which he noted at one point how Venetian Bishops were extracting rents from farmlands on Crete after the Venetians had taken the Island of from the Moslems who had taken it from the Byzantines. This reminded me of how Sicily is poor and crime-ridden since the rents flow to Spain, 200 years after they last owned it.
And again, the story repeats itself. Usury is introduced, wealth and power is concentrated in a few hands, life is miserable for the small farmer, the self-employed, and then the poeple welcome the conquering hordes and the hope of relief. Why produce when it will all be stolen?
So again it starts with usury, and goes from there.
And tying in the thread of how the religions gain land from donations, and then they work it on a rental basis like anyone else. Inheritance laws are prescriptive, and can be changed. So, how about an ethic that if you cannot work the land yourself, then it is homesteadable. If a Bishop in Venice cannot work farmland on Crete himself, then it is subject to adverse possession.
Property rights are absolute, but not inalienable. No one can take what is yours, but if you cannot work it, it is not yours.
People ask me so what do you do when you demonstrate usury does damage, and you are nonviolent? Do we make war on usurers? As both Islam and Christianity demonstate, we need no state. so assume that is gone. And religions are voluntary associations, and therefore nonviolent. So the task at hand is to importune the religions leaders to change their prescriptive law on property which would state land, even religiously owned land, can be be homesteaded if not actively worked by the "owner" for three years. The Islamic time frame sounds more just.
In this way religion might do good by more closely following the Will of God for peace, prosperity and justice.
Please feel free to share this post with three of your friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment