As was American society, particularly in the South, at the time of the Constitution's signing. While the excesses of 18th century America do not reach the levels of Greek and Roman society, it should not be disregarded that, though ours was a "class" rather than a "caste" driven system, it involved an underclass of slaves and wage serfs.
@Mesaclone I will return the volley on this a bit, though I accept your point. But in that acceptance, two things should be remembered:
Firstly, a class system is inherently more fluid than a caste system, though ours was a hybrid of both to start with... Free men being class-born, and undesirables being caste-born. Putting the racism of that aside for a moment (not to ignore it), class was an extraordinary new thing, creditable largely to the rise of the English middle class - A thing the elitists have tried to stifle ever since, it having trounced feudalism, which is the last caste system that gave the elites their due.
Which brings me to my foremost point, in that:
Because of this weird eclectic mix... The Anglo-Celtic Common Law, The Judeo-Christian Ethic, the rise of class over caste... Because of the confluence of these things, it became incumbent upon the governments of both the British and (especially) the Yanks, to finally put their money where their mouths were, and
to defend at last the premise that all men are created equal in the sight of God, and that He alone has endowed them with inalienable rights... The rough start be damned... If there is one thing that has sprung uniquely from the more Protestant strains of the West, it is that one insurmountable statement, pealing forth like thunder, echoing down the halls of history - And that, despite all the claims otherwise, is very profound - As profound as any other thing - and creditable to Britain and even more, to America. There simply is not an argument otherwise.
[Pyramids, 3 sisters of Baalbek...]
Its not beyond us in a physical sense [...]
Yes in fact, it is. We have no means by which to construct cyclopean architecture, nor the means to quarry, move, or erect such massive stones. Not to mention the remarkable precision of fit. We cannot do it.
[...]
though the desire and drive to build such monuments may be lacking. Walking on the moon, for example, is every bit the engineering miracle that the pyramids were.
Accepted... to the point that it can be, not knowing how they did what they did... Even so, walking on the moon is a tremendous feat.
While Torah and Zoroastrianism are not irrelevant to Western thought, its a real stretch to argue that they contain "all" the prerequisites of Republican form...as both are deeply patriarchal AND Monarchical in nature. So on this point, I would have to mostly disagree with your assertion.
To be specific, I gave that value to Torah, and not to Zoroaster. And I will challenge you on that.
Firstly, Torah was given
without a king, and YHWH expressly told them they would regret it when they asked for one.
And a patriarchate need not be a bad thing - Families within Houses, Houses within Clans, Clans within Tribes... Governance at the gate by judicial elders (county seat, appeal outside of the patriarchal structure), a supreme appellate court in the Sanhedrin (and lastly the King)... That is Representative Republic in form, if not like to our own, still very familiar, to include election, to a degree, as needed. My own family runs quite the same way, and historically, at least in the Northern Tribes, this is the most natural form of governance.
