From the beginning “people power’ (one literal translation of the Greek word for ‘democracy”) was constrained by a number of factors including traditional senses of what we now call “the rule of law” as well as traditional senses of morality. Those two things are never the same which is ONE of the drivers of history.

From the beginning “people power” has always been constrained by inequality of power and wealth. Wealth can proceed from power—and power can proceed from wealth. Power can be reinforced and even expanded (to a certain extent) by violence or the threat of violence. But one of the many ironies of democracy is that ALL power is people power. A “strong man” can only employ violence and its threats if he can somehow persuade enough people (perhaps occasionally starting with only a tiny cabal) to defend him. “Strong men” more often gain power from large masses of people (who surrender their responsibility and power to the “strong man”) by creating and/or manipulating symbols related to urgent fears, insecurities, desires, and aspirations. And there is always a significant segment of any population that is more or less (depending on circumstances) to assist, promote, and celebrate this process of surrendering (and focusing) power. In fact there is always a significant, though more or less latent) tendency in any one of us to succumb to the seductions of such processes or to acquiesce to their pressuring threats.

I will try to soon read the “Were we born evil?” article. The best thing about the title (in my crimped and limited outlook) right now is the question mark at the end. I’ll emphasize through repetition that I haven’t read the article, before saying that I try as much as I can to resist using terms like “good” and “evil” (especially the latter) to describe human individuals or groups. “Evil” is a pretty loaded term that I can’t (or is it won’t?) always avoid, but when I do use it I try to apply it to actions, consequences, circumstances, and perhaps (though perhaps not wisely) intentions.

.I think you are right about the traditional interpretation of the phrase “poor in spirit,” but it never really set well with me even as a kid. It may well come from a Greek translation of something overheard third hand in Aramaic that may or may not have undergone one or more editorial adjustments… Dealing only with English, to equate “poor in spirit” with “lacking spiritual pride” requires a bit of cognitive flip flopping. (again trapped in English) It DOES make sense to equate “poor” with “lacking” … by why equate “spirit” with “spiritual pride”? In English the phrase literally means to “lack spirit” which (to me) seems very far from “spiritual pride”, “spiritual matters,” “spiritual knowledge”. The word “spirit” by itself could means “life force” and in Greek is related to “breath.” Thinking about “spirit” that way (life force) *might* mean that those who are “poor in spirit” are “humble” in the sense that they lack the life force to struggle for wealth and power — or to resist oppression which then makes Luke’s version much less confusing, and therefore attractive and meaningful.

But somebody else (has anybody seen my old friend “Matthew”?) threw in a word we translate as “spirit”… I’m playing with the idea that “spirit” might refer to the ability to responsibly relate to the symbols of power in their own culture (which include symbols relating to “good” and “evil”, “thriving or collapsing” etc. but also those relating to taboos including, but not limited to violence, sexuality, and nurturance) and therefore the ability to manipulate them — or more appropriately to resist those who might manipulate them for ev… or less than honorable reasons (with “honorable” referring to deserving of admiration, gratitude, and support from humanity as a struggling species.