GEN873 Religion eventually replaced folk-customs as the primary source of ethics. Divine approval was substituted for popular approval as the criterion of moral conduct. As religion progressively evolved from a narrow tribal cult to embrace the terminology of universalism, it projected a broad morality divorced from parochialism. The triumph of Judaic monotheism inevitably led to the introduction of universalist concepts.  The Decalogue opened with the solemn declaration of monotheism, coupled with the declaration of the rights of man.   Its universality was acknowledged by Luther, who considered it a summary of all Christian ethics. The Age of Religion did not necessarily witness a rise of ethical societies. As a matter of practical expediency, religious leaders have accommodated themselves, at various stages in man’s history, to slavery, feudalism, industrial baronism, military dictatorships, and paranoid nationalism. In that respect there was no clear break with primitive ethical standards. On a personal level, too, religious ethics were not adequately reflected in the daily conduct of individuals. An overemphasis on ritualism frequently led to the stifling of moralism. Rituals are essential to the preservation of religion. They stimulate the exercise of self-discipline and safeguard the ethical principles with which they are associated. Yet the average religious individual finds it easier to express piety through a zealous observance of rituals then to make the effort central to the development of an ethical personality.  Furthermore, moralism is a nondenominational concept, while ritualism is sectarian and has a greater appeal to a member of a particular creed. Ritualism has consequently come to be regarded as the primary objective of religion. One may point to a number of statements in the Bible and Talmud which command ethical conduct per se, regardless of one’s zeal for ritual observance. Hillel considered the Golden Rule the very core and essence of Judaism. Rabbi Akiva upheld this rule as a “great principle of the Law.” The injunction to love man was thus given greater prominence than the injunction till love God. The rabbinic priorities were reversed in Luke 10:27 in the establishment of the proper conduct which guarantees eternal life. OriGenesis (3rd cent.), the outstanding Christian theologian of the early church, declared that a heretic whose moral life is good is to be condemned more than one whose moral life is unsatisfactory.   This became the dominant view which appealed to pietists of many generations, undermining the moral force of religion. It was not until the 17th century that the lone voice of John Selden, an Anglican theologian, proclaimed that Jews who are morally correct are entitled to the same heavenly rewards as Christians, a prospect long held out by rabbinic sages for all righteous gentiles. It was not until the 19yh century that Tolstoy declared that “love thy neighbor as thyself” is a summary of Christianity. Religion has undoubtedly played a vital role in shaping men’s ethical outlook. It is reasonable to expect that laws rooted in religion have also influenced moral insights. One is more likely to find this in Judaism and Islam, where law and morality flow from the same religious source. Judaism bases the relationship between man and God on a legal compact, the Covenant [this verse]. This helped Jews and Muslims to envision a link between law and ethics. The development of law in Judaism and Islam devolved on the legal scholar, who was also the exponent of religious ethics. Christendom, on the other hand, accepted Roman law as its own civil law. It adopted most of Rome’s legal concepts and rejected only the Roman views of slavery and marriage.   BLOCH 9-10