As Luther Martin examined things in 1787:
“The basis of all ancient and modern confederacies is the freedom and the independency of the states composing it. The states forming the Amphictionic council were equal, though Lacedemon, one of the greatest states, attempted the exclusion of three of the lesser states from this right. The plan reported, it is true, only intends to diminish those rights, not to annihilate them. It was the ambition and power of the great Grecian states which at last ruined this respectable council. The states as societies are ever respectful. Has Holland or Switzerland ever complained of the equality of the states which compose their respective confederacies? Bern and Zurich are larger than the remaining eleven cantos (so are many of the states of Germany); and yet their governments are not complained of. Bern alone might usurp the whole power of the Helvetic confederacy, but she is contented still with being equal.”
Has confident and locally secure Switzerland now had their Awakening that they are able to have locally effective and secure laws that reflect the nature of their culture without the interference of their National government? That era of Confederalism, before Napoleon’s conquest, was one of common agreement amongst the Cantons on some issues and then leaving for the localized governments other isssues. When did the Swiss hand so much to the National government that those who represent the people of Switzerland now feel it is their right to tell all the Cantons what to do on matters local? Was that given up for a robust defense of the Nation by universal conscription? To save the Nation with a universally manned military did the people actually agree to have how their society would be run dictated from the National level and not the local? So long as every man defends his Nation he must have a say in what that Nation is to be from the local, municipal government to the National government…and when the National seeks to abrogate that and dictate a society to the people, then you no longer have representative government, but tyranny.
While I do like A. C. Clarke he forgets that Christianity, via the bloodbath of the 30 years war, produced the separation of Church and State via Westphalia. Let that be over-run and there would be NO Westphalia, NO civil government that is not tied to religion, indeed none of the aspects that Christianity produced by agreeing that the Church should not dictate to the State what to do. He also forgets that those of other religions when ALLOWED under Islamic rule must pay an annual TAX for their religious beliefs. Of course under some regimes no other religion was permitted at all… and don’t mind the blood and ruination of a native society when that happens, right?
Christianity waded through the blood and deaths necessary to call into question waging war under the banner of the Prince of Peace. Islam does not call the blood it spills into question. One has reformed, the other has not. Christianity moved to become the universal religion through reason. Islam still uses the sword point.
I will stand with those that support reason over violence as violence is relegated to the third option, as turning your cheek twice invites your other cheeks to be ill-used. Tolerance is notable in that it, also, has limits. We are but poor mortals and we recognize that our toleration is not Deific and Unlimited. If we cannot come to reason together, then being civil is the best second option… when you try to exploit that to force myself and others to think a certain way, then you are asking for a fight and liable to get one. I will not start such fights, I will remain civil and expect that in return: civility is the touchstone of civilization. Bring a fight to me and I sure, as hell, will end it.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the Swiss can remember what it means to be Swiss. And find themselves in the modern role of defending the Gates of Vienna.
