Everybody who has studied American history knows the phrase “No taxation without representation!” The American Colonists of the 18th century rightfully believed themselves to be British subjects with every benefit entitled to citizens of Great Britain. Because the only obvious difference was geographical location, the Colonists absolutely understood that they possessed rights as Englishmen, including the right to govern themselves (to an extent) based upon tradition. This tradition in turn evolved from the many historical documents, such as the Magna Charta, that established the idea of an English constitution. The Colonists were not directly represented in Parliament and needed some other body of governing persons to approve laws and taxes regarding the Colonies. Therefore, each individual Colony hosted its own group to complete this task. At first, the British shared the Colonists’ view on self governance; but after only half a century, the British Parliamentary Monster grew hungry, and the only way to satisfy its appetite was money. Therefore, the British decided to modify their position to one in which they would condescendingly permit the Colonists to govern themselves under their “parent’s” greedy eye. In this way they could easily impose their authority little by little. One of the first infringements upon the Colonists’ rights was the Dominion of New England. Replacing all of the different Colonies’ ruling structures with one administrative body headed by a governor, who was appointed by the king, this prevented the Colonists from making their own decisions because the governor’s loyalty obviously belonged to the king. Later, the Stamp Act created a tax intended to bring in revenue for the king. The Colonists were fine with protective taxes to prevent their foreign trading, but they felt that taxes based solely on revenue for Britain must be approved by the governing bodies of the Colonies. The Colonists truly believed that they possessed the same rights as any other British citizen while the Parliament of Great Britain was intent upon depriving them of their rights. Unsurprisingly, these policies chained the Colonists’ rights of self government, and created festering resentment, which eventually led to the American Revolution.

The 18th century brought about several reforms in Europe. Many of these much needed changes were due to the Enlightenment and its offshoot, Enlightened Absolutism. Enlightened Absolutism describes the ruling style of several monarchs of this era. These kings and queens did not hold their power because of some divine right but because of a social contract with their subjects. The Enlightened Absolutists governed with the ideas from the Enlightenment in mind and many times were friends or pen pals with an Enlightenment thinker. Frederick II of Prussia was an excellent example. Notably, he practiced religious toleration for all groups, knowing that persecuted sects would travel to Prussia and he would rule over a great nation of skilled workers. Frederick also mildly reformed his judicial system and was even a friend of Voltaire. Likewise, Catharine the Great of Russia was Voltaire’s pen pal and also a friend to Diderot. Besides reforming Russia’s religious system by incorporating it into the government she founded many schools to educate the masses. Instituting one of the first mandatory education policies, Joseph II of Austria also demonstrated his pro-educational views. Because he sincerely believed the monks wasted time praying all day, he abolished many abbeys to consolidate the holy men into working citizens, seizing the monasteries’ grounds for himself. He reformed the legal system and upgraded the condition of serfs. Under the reign of Joseph II, Austria became the most religiously tolerant Catholic country around. Religious toleration, education, and economic advancement were issues that were highly important to the rulers of this time because it was widely accepted that they had some sort of a contract with the people they ruled to better their countries. The Enlightened Absolutist monarchs, Frederick II of Prussia, Catharine the Great of Russia, and Joseph II of Austria, reformed much of Europe in drastic ways.

Shakespeare is much more difficult to read than the King James Bible. The King James Bible was created by scholars over a period of seven years in the early 1600s. Groups of men studied in Hebrew and Greek combed over the original Hebrew and Greek Bibles in addition to three of the most common English Bibles of the time. Laboriously, they translated one part of the Bible at a time and then send this part around to be approved by the other groups of scholars residing at universities across England. In the end, their authorized version of the Bible, elegant while simple and true to its roots, influenced the English language more than any other piece of literature in history. On the other hand, although Shakespeare was a brilliant playwright, he always tried to use the English language to its fullest. This means that his sentences sound poetic but take hours to decipher because they are flowery. Metaphors and similes abound, which tie his sentences into a new Gordian Knot that takes forever to loosen. Reading Shakespeare is similar to being lost in a room that is so full of decor and furniture that there is no inch of wall nor floor left bare, hiding the exit. I would take the King James Bible over Shakespeare any day.

During the 18th century, in the Germanic lands, the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles VI, traveled the country asking the local lords to accept his daughter as the heir to his throne in Austria. Charles VI was so desperate that sometimes he would give up land for a “yes.” Eventually, his daughter, Maria Theresa, was accepted by all the lords, including Frederic I of Prussia. Unfortunately, Frederic I passed away soon after giving his fealty to Maria Theresa, and his son, Frederic II, was coronated as the Prussian King. Frederic II desperately coveted the Austrian province of Silesia because of its prosperity; but unfortunately, the land belonged to Austria, and his father had already agreed to recognize the new empress. He had no decent excuse for taking Silesia, but completed the deed anyway, starting the War of Austrian Succession. Eventually everyone except Hungary teamed up against Austria, and Prussia managed to hold onto Silesia throughout the war, which ended in 1748. Austria’s resentment simmered until 1756 when they joined forces with their new allies, the French and the Russians, in what was later dubbed the Diplomatic Revolution. Fearing the united power of these collective forces, Frederic lashed out at Austria, thus beginning the Seven Years War. An Austrian victory was expected when the Russian Czarina died. Her successor, Peter III, tuned out to be an admirer of Frederic II, and promptly withdrew all of his troops and support from the war. Prussia was able to retain all of its territories, Silesia among them, and this coupled with the fact that Frederic II was a fairly forward thinking ruler lead to the consolidation of the German States in the 19th century. So in a round about way, the War of Austrian Succession lead to the creation of modern day Germany.

Adam Smith was a Scottish economist, who lived from 1723 to 1790 and wrote his most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, a book on free market economy. This describes an economy not restricted by the government or anyone else. In other words, people voluntarily buy and sell whatever the heck they want based upon supply and demand. In his book, Smith refers to an Invisible Hand, which is the idea that by serving themselves, people actually help society as a whole. People willingly enter into professions not to aid other people, but because they want to help themselves and choose the most profitable career. But they cannot do everything. For example, the baker bakes bread to sell for money, not because he wants to prevent starvation. The basket weaver likewise does not give away his creations for free, but will sell his baskets to the baker so that the baker may carry his goods to market. The cobbler, too, crafts shoes to sell to the baker and basket weaver so that both may travel to the market. And in turn, the shoe maker buys bread to eat and baskets in which to carry his tools. These three men buy and sell to each other not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because they require money–to purchase each others products, which they need to survive. This is the Invisible Hand at work which Adam Smith refers to in The Wealth of Nations.

In 18th century France, during the Enlightenment, La Mettrie, Helvetius, and the Baron d’Holbach created a new philosophy called materialism. To them, matter was all important. La Mettrie reasoned that to be scientific, one must focus on matter and ignore everything else. Ludicrously, he believed that pleasure and egocentrism were the only goals of any worth or purpose and that man should not be ashamed for following them. Helvetius decided that humans are neither naturally noble nor naughty and are focused on surviving and self benefit. Meanwhile, the Baron d’Holbach stated that every human action is predetermined due to his or her genes, upbringing, and chemical signals. Believing that consciousness was a phenomenon due to matter, these materialists thought that everything was a machine, including living creatures. Therefore, people are unaccountable for what they do. After all, they only act upon chemical signals inside their brains. Because the materialists genuinely held that man is nothing more than a machine, these Enlightenment thinkers from the 1700s were crazy.

A covenant is an oath or promise that is made between human beings usually for mutual benefit. In the Bible, covenants are most often revered pacts between humans and God. Sanctions, which are consequences, answer these two questions: What do the parties receive if they obey; and What do the parties receive if they disobey. In the Old Testament books of Ruth, Jeremiah, and Lamentations, covenant sanctions are everything.
In Ruth, covenant sanctions play an extremely important part in her destiny. The story tells of an Israelite family that moved to Moab, which was a second-class pagan country, because of some hardship. Consisting of a father, mother, and two sons, the family was small. While out of Israel, the two sons married two native women. Unfortunately, soon after, all three men of the family died. The mother, Naomi, reluctantly told her two daughters in law to remarry. One of them, Ruth, refused, remaining faithful to Naomi and the Jewish religion, and traveled to Israel with her mother-in-law. To survive, they hungrily ate fruit from the ground at a rich relative’s property. Boaz, the relative, noticed Ruth’s upstanding character and was able to marry her because of an old Biblical law from Moses that stated that a relative should marry his relative’s widow. Ruth became the great grandmother of King David. Because Ruth obeyed the covenant of Moses, she was rewarded with great sanctions.
In the Books of Jeremiah and Lamentations, covenant sanctions describe the downfall of the Hebrew nation. Jeremiah contains the prophecies regarding what would happen to Israel if they continued to break the Mosaic Law. God felt as though Israel needed one last chance so He sent a powerful prophet to angrily yell at them. Because they disobeyed God’s covenanted will, the people of Israel were about to receive frightfully negative sanctions. However, it was too late for this once glorious nation, and God reluctantly sent the Babylonians, who sacked Jerusalem and scattered the Jewish people. Thus began the Diaspora. In Lamentations, the Israelites cried out with great anguish at the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon. Pitifully, they mourned their exile from their homeland.
In another story, Jesus gives the famous Sermon on the Mount, in which he discusses positive and negative sanctions in every other sentence. He reminds the people of God’s holy covenant with Moses and passionately tells them that they must continue to follow the Law; but their righteousness must surpass that of the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees. In other words, do not follow the letter of the law, follow the spirit of the law. Clearly, Jesus holds covenants with God extremely important and expects them to be held up by acts of faith.
The Bible makes apparent that covenants and sanctions are extremely important between God and His people. This is shown by the story of Ruth, what happened to Jeremiah’s Israel, and the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount. These stories illustrate the point that God’s covenants are undeniably irreplaceable. As shown in Lamentations, God does not take His promises lightly.

Most people believe that religion and science are fundamentally opposed. Religion is based off of faith and science uses truth and facts. Logically, these are in conflict. This is not so. To begin with, the Bible claims that God is orderly and that His universe is also organized. This allows science to form. If a group of humans were to believe that the universe might be different from day to day, then science would be pointless because one second gravity is in effect and the next second it is not. Teaching of and orderly universe, Christianity permits experiments to be repeated with the same results thousands of times. Because of this fact that the sciences started with aid from Christian teachings, priests and other religious men can partake in these sciences. Geology was dominated by Jesuits. Atomic sciences and Egyptology were essentially founded by priests. Kepler was a close friend to Jesuits, who enjoyed discussing astronomy with him. Many more examples of churchmen in the sciences exist. Although it would seen as if the church and science are fundamentally opposed, that is not the case.