Posted on 06/08/2005 12:26:29 AM PDT by Liberty Wins
America's "Europe problem" and Europe's "America problem" have been staple topics of transatlantic debate for the past several years.
To put the matter directly: Europe, and especially western Europe, is in the midst of a crisis of civilizational morale. The most dramatic manifestation of that crisis is not to be found in Europe's fondness for governmental bureaucracy or its devotion to fiscally shaky health care schemes and pension plans, in Europe's lagging economic productivity or in the appeasement mentality that some European leaders display toward Islamist terrorism. No, the most dramatic manifestation of Europe's crisis of civilizational morale is the brute fact that Europe is depopulating itself.
Europe's below-replacement-level birthrates have created situations that would have been unimaginable in the 1940s and early 1950s. By the middle of this century, if present fertility patterns continue, 60 percent of the Italian people will have no personal experience of a brother, a sister, an aunt, an uncle, or a cousin;[1] Germany will lose the equivalent of the population of the former East Germany; and Spain's population will decline by almost one-quarter. Europe is depopulating itself at a rate unseen since the Black Death of the fourteenth century.[2] And one result of that is a Europe that is increasingly "senescent" (as British historian Niall Ferguson has put it).[3]
When an entire continent, healthier, wealthier, and more secure than ever before, fails to create the human future in the most elemental sense-by creating the next generation-something very serious is afoot. I can think of no better description for that "something" than to call it a crisis of civilizational morale. Understanding its origins is important in itself, and important for Americans because some of the acids that have eaten away at European culture over the past two centuries are at work in the United States, and indeed throughout the democratic world.
READING "HISTORY" THROUGH CULTURE
Getting at the roots of Europe's crisis of civilizational morale requires us to think about "history" in a different way. Europeans and Americans usually think of "history" as the product of politics (the struggle for power) or economics (the production of wealth). The first way of thinking is a by-product of the French Revolution; the second is one of the exhaust fumes of Marxism. Both "history as politics" and "history as economics" take a partial truth and try, unsuccessfully, to turn it into a comprehensive truth. Understanding Europe's current situation, and what it means for America, requires us to look at history in a different way, through cultural lenses.
Europe began the twentieth century with bright expectations of new and unprecedented scientific, cultural, and political achievements. Yet within fifty years, Europe, the undisputed center of world civilization in 1900, produced two world wars, three totalitarian systems, a Cold War that threatened global holocaust, oceans of blood, mountains of corpses, the Gulag, and Auschwitz. What happened? And, perhaps more to the point, why had what happened, happened? Political and economic analyses do not offer satisfactory answers to those urgent questions. Cultural-which is to say spiritual, even theological-answers might help.
Take, for example, the proposal made by a French Jesuit, Henri de Lubac, during World War II. De Lubac argued that Europe's torments in the 1940s were the "real world" results of defective ideas, which he summarized under the rubric "atheistic humanism"-the deliberate rejection of the God of the Bible in the name of authentic human liberation. This, de Lubac suggested, was something entirely new. Biblical man had perceived his relationship to the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as a liberation: liberation from the terrors of gods who demanded extortionate sacrifice, liberation from the whims of gods who played games with human lives (remember the Iliad and the Odyssey), liberation from the vagaries of Fate. The God of the Bible was different. And because biblical man believed that he could have access to the one true God through prayer and worship, he believed that he could bend history in a human direction. Indeed, biblical man believed that he was obliged to work toward the humanization of the world. One of European civilization's deepest and most distinctive cultural characteristics is the conviction that life is not just one damn thing after another; Europe learned that from its faith in the God of the Bible.
The proponents of nineteenth-century European atheistic humanism turned this inside out and upside down. Human freedom, they argued, could not coexist with the God of Jews and Christians. Human greatness required rejecting the biblical God, according to such avatars of atheistic humanism as Auguste Comte, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche. And here, Father de Lubac argued, were ideas with consequences-lethal consequences, as it turned out. For when you marry modern technology to the ideas of atheistic humanism, what you get are the great mid-twentieth century tyrannies-communism, fascism, Nazism. Let loose in history, Father de Lubac concluded, those tyrannies had taught a bitter lesson: "It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man."[4] Atheistic humanism ultramundane humanism, if you will-is inevitably inhuman humanism.
The first lethal explosion of what Henri de Lubac would later call "the drama of atheistic humanism" was World War I. For whatever else it was, the "Great War" was, ultimately, the product of a crisis of civilizational morality, a failure of moral reason in a culture that had given the world the very concept of "moral reason." That crisis of moral reason led to the crisis of civilizational morale that is much with us, and especially with Europe, today.
This crisis has only become fully visible since the end ofthe Cold War. Its effects were first masked by the illusory peace between World War I and World War II; then by the rise of totalitarianism and the Great Depression; then by the Second World War itself; then by the Cold War. It was only after 1991, when the seventy-seven-year-long political-military crisis that began in 1914 had ended, that the long-term effects of Europe's "rage of self-mutilation" (as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called it) could come to the surface of history and be seen for what they were-and for what they are. Europe is experiencing a crisis of civilizational morale today because of what happened in Europe ninety years ago. That crisis could not be seen in its full and grave dimensions then (although the German general Helmuth von Moltke, one of the chief instigators of the slaughter, wrote in late July 1914 that the coming war would "annihilate the civilization of almost the whole of Europe for decades to come"[5]). The damage done to the fabric of European culture and civilization in the Great War could only been seen clearly when the Great War's political effects had been cleared from the board in 1991.
The Constitution has always permitted eminent domain. The recent decision notwithstanding, many states have constitutional restrictions on eminent domain for private purposes. Whether it's a natural right depends on the gainer or loser. The Indians might feel that our property ownership viewed as a natural right epitomizes disengenuousness. Again, as long as the state has a constitutional provision preventing such chicanery, no harm done.
Similarly, the federal jurusdiction has been extended to people's backyards by the marijuana growers decision, another irreparable injury, this time to federalism.
Well that little issue began in 1941 when that farmer decided to plant what he wanted...and lost in the USSC.
Sure, Bush can appoint a conservative judge or two, and even get them confirmed. But first, this predicament exposes the juducial branch as an extension of the other two, not as an independent purely intellectual law-interpretive body.
But isn't that the nature of that particular branch? It has always been that way.
And, of course, we have a pattern of judges that were perceived conservative at the time of the nomination promptly drifting leftward once on the bench. The chances of either of these three disastrous decisions to be overturned are virtually nil.
Well, I think a few of those under consideration would be better bets than most to hopefully fit into the ranks of Scalia and Thomas. But, yes, nothing is a sure thing. A justice is a tremendously powerful position. How about Bork, even at 78?
Likewise he should be able to explicitly use religion in his reasoning. I don't know if the instructions of the jury are matter of procedural law, so I don't know if personal opinion may be injected in those;
I agree up to this point. Once the judge starts using religious reasoning rather than legal reasoning, you begin a trend toward Sharia law. And if the judge were Catholic and used some reasoning that was based on teachings of the Church but had little to do with secular law, where does that leave us? It is a tremendously slippery slope that is very similar to the reasoning of those who countenance jury nullification. It begins a process of legal chaos, much more than we have today.
Religion is an intrinsic part of what a human being is; it should be an important factor in considering the qualifications of the judge, and it should be his right to exercise his religion or irreligion once he is installed in office.
His oath of office would prevent such exercise as a substitute for or even as an embellishment for his interpretation of the law, and his conduct of legal proceedings. Justice is a difficult thing to achieve, but it must be attempted within the confines of the established secular legal system.
For example, a judge may not attach civil guilt to things his religion considers wrong. A judge violates the separation clause when he hands down sentences for violating the Sabbath. He does not break the separation clause when he himself publicly observes the Sabbath.
As long as we clearly separate those two concepts in that manner, then we are in agreement.
So, the Jews and the Muslim, and of course the Christians, are no longer protected by the First Amendment. The minority religions are protected by the fungible code of political correctness that teaches us to be nice and non-judgemental to one another. This is a weak, and ultimately incorrect principle, and so the protection is illusory. It holds well for the Jews, the pagan, and the atheists. It is breaking down for the Muslim, and it offers no protection to the Catholics or Evangelical Protestants.
I cannot follow this logic. While Breyer's logic leaves a little to be desired, I think I understand the difference they were going after. Religion is clearly an important part of our history and our culture. As such, it has a right to public display. But if a public official is simply trying to use a public forum for putting forth a religious philosophy of any kind, then it is prohibited. I don't feel that my ability to seek out and practice any religion I choose has been diminished in any way, which is the essence of the First Amendment.
One important distinction is between hurting Christianity and hurting the civil society. The article is about the civil society in Europe being on the verge of death, not Christianity. Indeed, the pederast priests did more to hurt Christianity than anty Supreme Court decisions; but it is Supreme Court decisions like these that injure our civil society.
Our discussion has taken a number of interesting turns as we try to understand the current state of a healthy or unhealthy Europe. But just as your argument that Europe is where it is because it has turned against Christianity is without evidence, so too the statement that the USSC decision on the Ten Commandments has hurt society is not replete with evidence. To the contrary, the decision allowing the Ten Commandments in Texas seems to clear many issues of concern to Americans and certainly pops the balloon of that idiot from California that wants all references to God removed from all public property. I'm optimistic, and even more so with a good conservative replacement for O'Connor.
Once the judge starts using religious reasoning rather than legal reasoning, you begin a trend toward Sharia law.
I did not say "rather than". Obviously if the law says A and his religion says not A but B, then the judge should either overrule the law, or change his religion. Beyond that, my point is, and you continue to disagree form every angle, that religion is simply a part of human existence. Secularism is also a religion; so is atheism. You are a pro-life secularist. I am sure you have come across the argument, directed at you, that your pro-life conviction is a religious conviction. Do you not see a fundamental flaw in their argument? Why should a conviction be discredited merely because there is a religion that holds it? Is is not reasonable to say that convictions are upheld by a religion because they are true? Christians and Muslims agree on few things theologically, but the Muslim are our best allies in the fight against legalized abortion. Sharia prohibits abortion. So?
Religion is clearly an important part of our history and our culture. As such, it has a right to public display. But if a public official is simply trying to use a public forum for putting forth a religious philosophy of any kind, then it is prohibited. I don't feel that my ability to seek out and practice any religion I choose has been diminished in any way, which is the essence of the First Amendment.
In the Soviet Union it was readily acknowledged that religion is an important historical component of culture. Icons were on display in museums, etc. Also, people were free to practice at least the religion that was historically significant in Russia, that is Orthodox Christianity. They could buy religious books, go to church, etc. Now, the state would not assist in any way, -- no public land for churches, no state publishing houses would print the Bible. People who were overtly religious would not get positions of trust, such as in management or education. There was a complete separation of church and state. Sounds familiar?
The truth is that religion, again, is with a man just like a nose is with a man. It is both public and private by definition. If you ban it, you ban people's noses.
without evidence
You don't see the evidence because you don't see the nose on the face. You don't think a decision to have a second child versus a second car has anything to do with religion. Wrong, -- it has everything to do with meaning of life (as a secularist would put it), and so is a matter of religion. This is why you see Europe's predicament in random atomistic terms of economics, contraceptive technology, historical experience, etc. You see the effects but you don't see the central organizing principle of these effects.
Similarly you don't see any harm in the banishment of the Ten Commandments from public life (unless as a museum piece). If you don't see a nose, you won't see a hole where the nose has been. Sure, Americans can still buy second (or third) cars, have their alimony argued about in courts, haul their 1.3 children off to daycare, watch leftist drivel on TV and decide between a Caesar salad and a hamburger, without religious monuments. But that is not life with a meaning.
In one Gospel story Christ heals a blind man, and the blind man does not regain his vision instantly. When people ask him if he can see, he says that he sees men that look like trees, except they are walking. Now, nothing in what Christ did has unnecessary details, as things are both literal and metaphorical. Blindness is physical blindness and also spiritual blindness. When the man cured of blindness sees walking trees, that is because men who don't know Christ are trees. This vision ought to be frightening.
He can only negate the law if it is in conflict with the Constitution, not if it is unfair or conflicts with religious teachings. If he cannot accept the law because of his religion, his only option is to step down, a third option. To overrule the law would be to substitute religion for legal reasoning which was my point.
Beyond that, my point is, and you continue to disagree form every angle, that religion is simply a part of human existence.
I don't disagree. Of course it is a part of human existence. The degree to which it is a controlling part though, is the question. Our culture includes many facets and religion is clearly one.
Secularism is also a religion; so is atheism.
Those are simply meaningless and intended to prove that in fact all people are religious, which of course, they are not.
You are a pro-life secularist. I am sure you have come across the argument, directed at you, that your pro-life conviction is a religious conviction.
Only from you. I have stated before that to abhor murder does not require a belief in any particular religion, or in a higher being. To abhor a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution does not require a religious philosophy. I am not an atheist, but I do know atheists who feel very strongly about the rights to life, liberty and property. So no, a pro-life conviction is not necessarily a religious one.
Why should a conviction be discredited merely because there is a religion that holds it? Is is not reasonable to say that convictions are upheld by a religion because they are true?
Most religions are morally based, and as such, much of their ideology would complement those held by secularists and even atheists as I have pointed out earlier. To say that either the secular laws depend on a religious foundation, or that religious convictions are the creator of similarly moral laws is a basic flaw of logic. Because religion has such an influence in our society, of course some laws may well have been enacted by those with religious backgrounds. That by itself does not ratify your conclusion that the particular religion was the cause of that law. We differ in that you (appear to) believe that no law that recognizes rights in humans could have been enacted without the influence if not control of religion. I believe that humanity has progressed to the point where enlightened people can and do protect the rights of other humans, with no influence from religion. Did O'Hare not care for people?
Perhaps the most basic conservative philosophy is that of institutions. A conservative believes that what we have today was greatly influenced by the past, and continuity is all important. So no true conservative rules out religion and the part it plays in the culture and society we enjoy today. But a true conservative also recognizes the dangers throughout history that religious institutions have played when attempting to manipulate and even control secular governments. A true conservative can honor and respect both institutions, but can demand that both maintain their distance from each other.
Christians and Muslims agree on few things theologically, but the Muslim are our best allies in the fight against legalized abortion. Sharia prohibits abortion. So?
That's your argument? That two otherwise completely divergent religious philosophies agree on one point, makes a point? Even within the family of Christian religions, abortion is accepted by some. You are against divorce, but doesn't Judaism permit divorce, as does many Christian sects?
There was a complete separation of church and state. Sounds familiar?
Again, you suffer from causal reductionism, that is using a single issue to explain that which was caused by multiple complex issues. By using the church/state separation issue to explain the vast horrors consummated by the Soviet tyrants is similar to explaining that Europe today is where it is because of a reduction in the numbers of Christians. You can say it, but that doesn't make it so. Nor does it transfer to the church/state separation arguments here in this country.
The truth is that religion, again, is with a man just like a nose is with a man. It is both public and private by definition. If you ban it, you ban people's noses.
Bad analogy. One is spiritual, one physical. Your analogy would seem to indicate that all atheists are simply liars. Man's noses have always been there, religion has not.
You don't think a decision to have a second child versus a second car has anything to do with religion. Wrong, -- it has everything to do with meaning of life (as a secularist would put it), and so is a matter of religion.
Again, you operate under the false assumption that man cannot, without some religious influence, believe in the rights and welfare needs of his fellow man. This is simply without merit. There is nothing older in the history of mankind that social interaction. The family unit and then the larger social unit such as clans and tribes predated any religion of any type. Self protection and the protection of those in your social group were very strong. Though mankind has gone through a terribly horrific history which included the development and inculcation of religious philosophy of the populace, mankind has clearly evolved (if I may use that word) to the point where it can operate quite successfully with both church and state separately.
This is why you see Europe's predicament in random atomistic terms of economics, contraceptive technology, historical experience, etc. You see the effects but you don't see the central organizing principle of these effects.
I merely assert that you are confusing correlation with causation, attempting to attach a simple cause to a complex situation.
Similarly you don't see any harm in the banishment of the Ten Commandments from public life (unless as a museum piece).
I simply pointed out that the justices did see a distinction. There is a fine but serious line that is crossed when you permit the active installation of items reflecting particular religious beliefs at taxpayer's burden, especially in a court of law where jurisprudence and religious philosophy can become so entangled as to lose all recognition of the true meaning of the law. The next step then, is what I predicted earlier. The judge then begins to address the law in terms of his own religious convictions. This is neither just nor a "reasonable" accommodation of religion. You like the thought because you think in terms of Roy Moore. I dislike the thought because I see with our vastly changing society a judge someday with Sharia on his mind.
Sure, Americans can still buy second (or third) cars, have their alimony argued about in courts, haul their 1.3 children off to daycare, watch leftist drivel on TV and decide between a Caesar salad and a hamburger, without religious monuments. But that is not life with a meaning.
Which is the great thing about our society, that is the freedom of choice. I believe that life with a meaning is a life that has done good for humanity. It may or may not have been under the guidance and direction of a specific religion, but good nonetheless.
When the man cured of blindness sees walking trees, that is because men who don't know Christ are trees. This vision ought to be frightening.
But as you say, it may be literal or metaphorical. Good people exist who don't necessarily believe in everything in the Bible. Good people exist who believe in the Prophet Mohammad. Good can come from many sources, just as can evil. Every society and every religion has had its share of both.
If he cannot accept the law because of his religion, his only option is to step down, a third option.
No, that is the same as apostasy from the religion. If religion says that X is just, and the laws are made that say Y is how you rule, then you do what the religion says, or you don't have the religion.
The rest of my post, I think, you misunderstood, which is of course my fault. Let me put is in simple terms. All religions teach truth most of the time. Irreligion also teaches truth most of the time. Moreover, where they teach different it is, typically, ceremonial practice and not moral law. This is why in reality most judges don't get torn like our hypothetical judge. They are not asked to judge if egg sandwiches are kosher, and all religions teach against theft and murder. But on occasion -- abortion or contraception are good examples, -- there is a disagreement with some secularists. Your secularism seems to say that whenever a particular view is traced to a religion -- e.g. a judge rules against contraception and is Catholic, -- that religious affiliation taints the decision rendering it invalid. I say, the decision may, of course, be badly argued or incorrectly arrived at, but the very fact that the judge's worldview comes form a particular religion is in no way a disqualifier. Secularism is a worldview like any other, it does not confer special privileges to a judge.
No, that is the same as apostasy from the religion. If religion says that X is just, and the laws are made that say Y is how you rule, then you do what the religion says, or you don't have the religion.
If a judge takes an oath to defend and support the Consitutution of the United States, and a law is enacted which is not in conflict with the Constitution, but is in conflict with his religion, he has no choice but to find the law constitutional. By negating the law, he would be acting not as a judge, but as a legislator, something almost all of us here on FR are vehemently against. That is why he must recuse himself in any case involving a conflict of interest. His religious beliefs would be a conflict of interest if it differed from a law that was otherwise constitutional.
Your secularism seems to say that whenever a particular view is traced to a religion -- e.g. a judge rules against contraception and is Catholic, -- that religious affiliation taints the decision rendering it invalid. I say, the decision may, of course, be badly argued or incorrectly arrived at, but the very fact that the judge's worldview comes form a particular religion is in no way a disqualifier.
Again, it would only be a disqualifier if the judge fails to do his duties as he took an oath to do. Let's say for example that the judge is a circuit court judge (appeals court). As such, if a case involving settled law is brought, he has a duty to either adjudicate in favor of the law, or recuse himself (step down in the case) if his religious beliefs conflict with the law. If he instead rules against the law, then he should be removed from the bench because he has violated the Constitution, the ultimate law of the land.
Obviously, as a Supreme Court justice he has much more latitude, because the USSC is the ultimate arbiter. USSC decisions can be reversed by the USSC or by a constitutional amendment.
Obviously, the presumption is that the judge attempts to do his job as defined by the Constitution and within the jurisdictional scope, nearly all the time, or else he simply won't be a judge for very long.
However, even though a judge, he does not cease to be human. If a conflict exists between the law of the land and the moral law, the judge must stick with the moral law and effect a positive change until such time as the gavel it pried from his dead cold hand. Resigning his position without a fight would be cowardly.
He would not have to resign his position, merely recuse himself from that case. It happens at times and is the honorable way to keep from violating either of his oaths.
Well, in any case he needs to weigh whether a greater good can be achieved by violating the professional oath but putting a positive change into effect. For example, if an innocent life can be saved by the judge (or any other legal professional in the case) by breaking the law, recusing himself rather than saving that life is immoral. It is like jury nullification as applied to judges. Law is only as good as it is moral; upholding an unjust law is dishonorable.
It is called anarchy. Your moral justification for legal nullification is another's justification for keeping the law. It is simply moral chaos. You have basically justified why the Democrats believe in selecting judicial activists...those who would supplement the courts for the legal hierarchy that exists today.
What you countenance is the elimination of the legislative process. Why have laws at all? Let's just leave all actions to a judge and jury. If they feel that some moral wrong has been done, then they can adjudicate it as they may, using only their consciences.
But of course, justice for a Muslim judge will be far different than justice for a Catholic judge. How about an atheist judge? Let's make sure I understand it correctly....After the following oath is taken by a judge:
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of this office: ''I, _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _ _ _ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
After that oath, it is alright with God for the judge to forsake that oath taken before God to follow another set of "moral imperatives" if the judge feels they are more just than the Constitution of the US?
If the judge serves nothing but his whim by violating the oath of office, then he is violating not merely the letter of the man-made law but more inportantly the moral law also, as all judges on the left do by definition.
Very very well put.
mark to read tomorrow
I'm glad to see this thread was resurrected tonight. Here's the answer to the question it asks, posted three years ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/750580/posts
Bump for tomorrow.
Western Culture ping
You have got this right! My take on Europe has always been that 'anyone who was any good...left!'
In fact, most came here to the U.S. We received the biggest risk-takers (those who left there homelands not speaking a word of Engish) and thus the entrepreneurs, and the most ambitious (those willing to work hard) from across Europe by the millions. Europe was then left with a population that was demographically disproportionate; more than the usual number of those 'playing it safe' and staying put - and thus the bureaucrats, and the apathetic, thus the large number who take a permanent place on the sloth-enabling European unemployment rolls.
Reagan80
The point is that anytime a judge rules in contravention to the Constitution for whatever reason, he is violating his oath of office. You are simply stating that moral laws (however you might define that) are above the Constitution. People on the left believe the same thing. If a judicial nominee feels there would be times that he cannot in good conscience follow the Constitution, he has no business nor right to agree to serve. Either that or the words "So help me God" mean absolutely nothing to him.
Indeed, judges, and everyone else who comtemplates a position of power today should decide whether or not he should avoid any association with the secular state. This is the question Weyrich asked about a decade ago, and it is still without an aswer. In Europe in particular, it seems to me that it takes certain Quixotic quality for anyone to contemplate a career in anything to do with government.
Naturally, there is plenty an honest judge can do without ever coming in conflict between his oath of office and the moral law. 99% of the case load has nothing to do with the areas where the law has stepped outside of the moral perimeter. It would be a straw man for you, for example, to argue that a judge would then be permitted to interpret any law as he sees fit and claim adherence to moral law. In order to do so the judge must see a clear moral law imperative, and a clear man-made law mandate againt the imperative.
This having been said, it is a well-establishes tenet, particularly in America, that ultimately, morals trump the man-made law, even the constitutional law. In the past we saw it with slavery and Jim Crow laws. Today, we see it in abortion laws, and increasingly in various oppressive church-state relation laws, and, of course, gay "marriage". Those, in my humble opinion, should be ignored across the board by those who have the misfortune to serve in government or in the courtroom, here or in Europe, and the effects of these laws should be peacefully resisted by everyone as a matter of Christian duty and civic duty.
Listen to writer Burt Prelutsky as he explains why he bought and displayed an American flag, in gratitude to his four grandparents who emigrated to America:
"You see, one day, on my way home, I began to think how lucky I was to have been born in this country. Through no effort of my own, having made no sacrifice, taken no risk, I was the beneficiary of freedom, liberty, education, comfort, security and, yes, even luxury. It was not the first time I had acknowledged this good fortune. The difference this time is that, for some reason, it suddenly occurred to me that my good luck hadn’t just happened. It had been the direct result of these four people pulling up stakes and moving thousands of miles, across an entire continent and the Atlantic Ocean, to a new country, pursuing a dream that their children and their children’s children, of whom I am one, might, just might have better lives."
You must first define what absolute moral law is. I'm not trying to be funny. Every religion has its moral laws, even Islam. I'm sure that some moral laws relating to social good would not be shunned by the left. Part of the major differences between the left and right involve the extent to which the federal government involves itself in the social well being of its citizens. From that perspective would you not agree that the left seems more concerned with moral law than does the right?
I understand that the strict constitutional constructivism is in opposition to what the left wants, -- secular law by liberal punditry, -- as well as to what Christian conservative want, -- natural moral law.
Again, perhaps if you can define that in some universal fashion, that is, a set of laws that all can agree on, then we have a better basis for discussion.
Indeed, judges, and everyone else who comtemplates a position of power today should decide whether or not he should avoid any association with the secular state.
Well, perhaps we are getting somewhere. I would have far more respect for a judge who stepped down because he could no longer support the Constitution than one who would surreptitiously inject his own personal set of moral views into a constitutional issue where those views measurably redefined a settled issue.
In Europe in particular, it seems to me that it takes certain Quixotic quality for anyone to contemplate a career in anything to do with government.
Perhaps they do not see a conflict between their own personal moral values (law) and the laws of the land. Perhaps they see the betterment of society as highly consistent with such moral laws?
It would be a straw man for you, for example, to argue that a judge would then be permitted to interpret any law as he sees fit and claim adherence to moral law. In order to do so the judge must see a clear moral law imperative, and a clear man-made law mandate againt the imperative.
His job is not to interpret laws to be fit. For example, many would consider the legislation enacted under the Clinton Administration relating to welfare reform to be highly unfit from a moral perspective. But as a judge, the decision must be whether or not it is compatible with the Constitution, not whether it is fit. In his decision, the judge may certainly comment on the unfitness of the law (if that is what he believes) but the Constitution is his guide. As I have indicated earlier, without such a defined role for the judiciary, chaos would be the order of the day. Because no matter how much you personally believe that you have a clear, concise and undebatable set of moral laws, so does every judge. And they likely all differ in one respect or another. The straw man you refer to obviously involves abortion. As a lower court judge, most abortion cases may well be moral imperatives to him, but they are settled law. As I have indicated though, the USSC can reopen issues as it sees fit, and certainly has no requirement to adhere to Stare Decisis. Having said that however, it should be noted that if Roe is reversed, it will be because there is no constitutional right to an abortion....not because it is immoral. I know how you feel about divorce, and the judge may likewise feel it is morally unacceptable. But it is nonetheless the law of the land, and fully in keeping with the Constitution. He has no choice but to comply with those laws.
This having been said, it is a well-establishes tenet, particularly in America, that ultimately, morals trump the man-made law, even the constitutional law.
Perhaps, but only if it agrees with the Constitution.
In the past we saw it with slavery and Jim Crow laws.
Slavery was never a right contained within the Constitution, but one of those unlimited rights seen through the 9th and 10th Amendments. It took a constitutional amendment to end slavery. It was not ended by some moral law. Most states had long ago ended slavery, and as immoral as it was, only the Constitution could prevent it. As for Jim Crow laws, court decisions that ultimately outlawed them may have been made because of moral imperative, but was ultimately because they were found to violate the Constitution. Remember, many of the laws now on the books enacted by the left for the betterment of mankind were done so because of their belief that moral imperative was operative, and the courts that agreed did so because of the Constitution, not moral imperative.
Those, in my humble opinion, should be ignored across the board by those who have the misfortune to serve in government or in the courtroom, here or in Europe, and the effects of these laws should be peacefully resisted by everyone as a matter of Christian duty and civic duty.
I have no problem with citizens working for change in the laws, but, as I've said before, I do have a problem with government officials inserting their moral laws in place of the secular laws they took an oath to uphold. Heck, why stop with just those? Let's let every government official and judge refuse to uphold any law he considers immoral. There are literally thousands of laws which would qualify for someone's moral imperative. Some consider capitalism the most immoral and evil economic system on the earth. Under your rules for nullification, a police chief should be able to shut down any corporate business if he believes it to be immoral. And there is the sale of birth control paraphernalia. A Catholic judge should be able to shut that down. A Jewish judge could hardly be faulted for not prosecuting a hate crime against an Islamic place of worship....and so on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.