Posted on 08/30/2010 4:19:51 PM PDT by wagglebee
I’ve been gone all day and can’t sit here for more than a minute, will check in to read everything later.
I have seen here and elsewhere that the vicious hatred of God based morals is in full swing, like a rising tide on a full moon day.
A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
Care to try again?
Mrs. Don-o, I like a lot of what Rushdoony wrote, but he's not my favorite theonomist by any means; I like Nymeyer far, far better. Just to offer a very quick and dirty summation of the differences, I'll post the following rhetorical question (and response):
There you have it in a nutshell. I don't mind discussing the matter in greater depth, but maybe sometime when I've got 16 hours to FReep and nothing else to do. ;-)
What rubs me the wrong way, though, is the spectacle of my well-loved fellow "limited governmentistas" managing to benefit year after year from publicly-funded roads and railroads, airports and seaports, parking garages and postal services, and yet jumping in with such remarkable celerity to support a lethal decision to deny care to a handicapped man whose court-appointed advocates want him dead.
To be honest, I jumped in because I saw BykrBayb labelling Lurker as a Nazi, just because Lurker is opposed to National-Socialist Government-run health care. Lurker can take care of himself, I'm sure; but I thought it was ridiculously over the top, and I said so.
That being said, though, I would posit that "hard cases" like this do help us to get our core philosophy right (even if I'm completely sympathetic to your point that this Government funding of this particular case would be real far down on the list of "Government Programs we need to abolish, like yesterday". It would be on the list. But nowhere near the top). Are we going to abandon our support for Property Rights and Limited Government on the chance that transitioning away from Government Theft and Redistribution might result in some Bad Things happening to Good People? (And it is an uncertainty; nobody really knows what God might or might not do to care for this man, in the absence of Government funding).
The basic question is, I think, "What is the highest Moral Value? Is it Human Life? Or is it Obedience to God's Law?" Because God's Law includes the commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", and there aren't any exceptions -- even if Tiny Tim is dying, it really isn't Moral to rob Scrooge to buy little Timmy his medicine. I think we need to remember that.
And if it wouldn't be Moral for you to commit such Theft personally, it's no more Moral for you to hire the Government to do it for you. (Which is again to say -- even though this particular case might be very far down on the list of "Government Programs we need to abolish, like yesterday" -- it should still be on the list).
I'm not a Theonomist in the Rushdoony or Nymeyer sense, I'm really a Natural Law-ist. (Natural "Lawyer"?) I have the highest regard for God's Law, but I think it takes more discernment in terms prioritization, or, to use Jesus' terms, asking what are the "weightier" matters of the Law?
You asked, " The basic question is, I think, "What is the highest Moral Value? Is it Human Life? Or is it Obedience to God's Law?" Because God's Law includes the commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", and there aren't any exceptions -- even if Tiny Tim is dying..."
If you take that apart, you may find you have a false dilemma (Human Life ~or~ God's Law?") because God's Law itself may require you to prioritize and favor immediate action to preserve life, even (apparently) despite a received Commandment. Jesus gave examples of this: King David taking bread from the Temple which only the priests could lawfully eat, because he and his men were hungry; Jesus and His disciples "working" (e.g. healing) on the Sabbath, which was just as justifiable as rescuing an ox from a pit on the Sabbath.
There are Moral Absolutes (to use the name of a valuable high-volume FReeper Ping List!): . they are very, very few but very, very firm.
Almost (~almost~) any law can be broken in order to save a life. For instance, to save somebody trapped on the second floor of a burning building, you can run onto the property (trespassing), dash over to a neighbor's yard and take a ladder (theft), break open a window (vandalism or breaking-and-entering), knock the person unconscious if they're panicking so badly that they can't be handled (assault and battery), carry them off the property (kidnapping) and put them in a car without their consent (abduction), take them to the hospital doing 50 in a 35 MPH zone (speeding)-- etc. etc., because virtually all laws and policies can be set aside to save a life.
Scripture says (Romans 13:8) "You owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the whole Law."
In this instance I am loving my neighbor, obviously, and Scripture says I have fulfilled The Whole Law. I haven't broken God's Law despite the "technical" or "apparent" trespassing, theft, etc.
Similarly in the classic example of "What can you say when the Nazis ask where the Jews are hiding?" You can say "There aren't any Jews here, Mister Nazi, sir" while, as you know, they're behind the false back wall of your attic.
Pleasing to God. No moral violation whatsoever.
This whole exposition is not means to justify the Socialist Obamanation ("Service to Subhumanity") but just to illustrate that God's Law can ~sometimes~ ~paradoxically~ even require the "apparent" setting aside of God's Commandment.
Which laws? When? For what reason? And by whom?
Grist for a later discussion :o)
This may be helpful; also mine at #305.
Can someone show me where I called Lurker, or anyone else, a Nazi? Although I cannot be 100% certain, I’d bet my eyeteeth Lurker is NOT a Nazi.
Some people have obviously forgotten the most important lesson of WWII. “Never again.” That doesn’t mean every evil from that period should be allowed, as long as it isn’t perpetrated by a Nazi. It doesn’t mean it’s okay once in a while where money is concerned. It doesn’t mean it’s okay if it’s only directed against the weakest among us. It means Never Again! Not now! Not Ever!
I saw Lurker parroting a well-known Nazi propaganda poster. The message in that poster was wrong then, and it’s wrong now.
Can anyone show me how Lurker’s statement is any different from the message in that poster? I’ve found a few differences to prove that Lurker is definitely not a Nazi. Just because he carries their message into the 21st century doesn’t mean he’s a Nazi.
Lurker used English; the poster used German.
Lurker used the Internets; the poster used a magazine.
Lurker was talking about dollars; the poster spoke of Reichsmark.
Lurker was complaining about the financial burden of continuing the life of a middle-aged man with hereditary defects whose name is David Hockenberry;
the poster was complaining about the financial burden of continuing the life of a middle-aged man with hereditary defects whose name we do not know.
Lurker said he’s forced to pay for it; the poster said it’s the People’s money.
I’m sure there are many other differences as well. And that’s just within the poster.
The Nazis were more than just this one propaganda poster. I’m sure Lurker is different from the Nazis in many other ways. That doesn’t negate the fact that Lurker parroted this poster and advocated its principles.
Whenever I see someone parroting that poster, I post it. I don’t post it to everyone who disagrees with me. Only the ones who say the same thing the poster says.
Is that message really only shocking if it comes from a Nazi? Does anyone really believe that it was only wrong because the Nazis said it, and if anyone else says it it’s acceptable, and therefor no comparison is valid? It was wrong on its own merits. It would have been wrong if Thomas Jefferson had said it, though he never would have (despite any recent rumors to the contrary).
This is a term which is gaining a lot of popularity with some Conservatives, but which enjoys very little concrete definition. What is the "Natural Law"? What are its specific parameters? If it's whatever you want it to be, then we ought to label it what it really is: "Situational Ethics".
If you take that apart, you may find you have a false dilemma (Human Life ~or~ God's Law?") because God's Law itself may require you to prioritize and favor immediate action to preserve life, even (apparently) despite a received Commandment. Jesus gave examples of this: King David taking bread from the Temple which only the priests could lawfully eat, because he and his men were hungry; Jesus and His disciples "working" (e.g. healing) on the Sabbath, which was just as justifiable as rescuing an ox from a pit on the Sabbath.
Actually, as I understand it, Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees' definition of "lawful" exceeded what God had established. However, such excessive Strict Sabbatarianism as that practiced by the Pharisees, does not invalidate God's commandment to keep the Sabbath holy.
Almost (~almost~) any law can be broken in order to save a life. For instance, to save somebody trapped on the second floor of a burning building, you can run onto the property (trespassing),
Biblically, "Trespass" includes the act or intention of causing some harm or mischief -- some Covetous Act of some sort. ("Covetousness" includes various forms of Abuse and Malfeasance not involving actual theft). What you have described is not, Biblically, a Trespassing.
dash over to a neighbor's yard and take a ladder (theft),
It's only Theft if you keep the ladder.
But if you keep the Ladder, then THAT would be morally wrong. Because that would be Theft.
And that's exactly what you're proposing -- that it's morally okay to Steal for some "good" purpose.
So, for the moment (and for the sake of keeping the discussion focused on the question at hand), I'm going to lay aside the rest of your post which concerns various "temporary, emergency" actions in pursuit of life-saving (you're not proposing that it's okay to abduct somebody to the hospital every day, on the off chance that they might need life-saving medical care that day, are you?), because whether or not we debate the moral justification for such actions, they're just not germane to the question under consideration.
What we're talking about is not analogous to temporarily "borrowing" a ladder, unless you think that the Federal Government is just temporarily "borrowing" your Taxes. What we're talking about is whether or not it's okay to Steal your neighbor's ladder for some "good" (even life-saving) purpose, and then keep it.
Whatever "make-it-up-as-you-go" Morality the amorphous term "Natural Law" represents, I can tell you what Biblical Morality calls such an action: SIN.
And it's always Wrong -- even to save a life.
I took the time to make myself acquainted with Theonomy (actually, reacquainted: my husband and I used to get Chalcedon publications.) It would reward your efforts to become even briefly acquainted with the main proponents of Natural Law. I again recommend Hadley Arkes (Link), but I actually got my best doses from Germain Grisez, William May, and John Finnis.
In a nutshell (my own nutty words): God, as Author of both the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature, has made His law comprehensible to "right reason" (cf Romans, the "heart") inasmuch as man has a rational nature. Scripture rightly understood, and Human Nature rightly understood, must yield the same moral facts (principle of non-contradiction)(note, NL would argue that there is such a thing as a "moral fact.") In politics/public policy, it is in my opinion best to argue from Natural Law, which reaches the same conclusions as revealed (supernatural) law, because it then persuades one's non-Christian fellow-citizen that it is reasonable, and thus tends to gain the consent of the governed. This is important in any political system, but especially one such as ours in the USA.
You wrote: "Biblically, "Trespass" includes the act or intention of causing some harm or mischief --"
This is true of moral law in general, even in secular law (e.g. common law), inasmuch as violation requires both an objectively wrong act, and mens rea, intent.
The fact that one can understand taking somebody else's ladder as "not theft," (because one took it temporarily, in an immediate life-threatening emergency, had no reasonable alternative, didn't keep it for personal or trivial use, returned it promptly, etc.)--- shows one good avenue of argument.
Thank you. I must take my leave.
It seems that you're arguing that Natural Law is simply Biblical Law, but derived from natural reason rather than supernatural revelation -- like, say, an atheist reasoning his way to "treat others as you would wish to be treated" from a starting point of enlightened self-interest. Okay, I can see your argument.
Well -- to the extent that "Natural Law" conforms to Revealed Law, then I have no problem with the term. (Provided it's understood that in any perceived conflict, the presumption of rectitude rests with Biblical Law, not "Natural Law").
I just think it's an unnecessary complication in conversations between Christians, because we can just skip the non-theistic construct and instead directly discuss Biblical Law. But, as always, that's just IMHO.
The answer to that, as I think we would both agree, is “No.”
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has even established that public funds were being used (although I'm not going back to scan 310+ messages to verify that). So the unanswered questions include:
As one poster mentioned, there’s always more to the story than just the headline and a few paragraphs. I seems a shame that the discussion has gotten off the topic of whether guardians can pro-actively attempt to guarantee their ward's quicker demise.
Absolutely.
"We can't afford to pay for expensive care without stealing the money from some other working families" is one argument -- which the advocates of Government Health Care seem to resent, but which is nonetheless founded (I believe) on a legitimate Moral basis.
"We shouldn't care because his life is worth less than others" is an entirely different argument, and a reprehensible one (and not one which I believe any of the opponents of Government Health Care are making).
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has even established that public funds were being used (although I'm not going back to scan 310+ messages to verify that). So the unanswered questions include:...Can the guardians be disqualified fom their guardianship, and replaced by others who would see it as their duty to represent their ward's interests, and not somebody else's?
Arguments over the morality of Government funding aside, I'd certainly agree that the question of yours which I've bolded is the one which is most immediately critical and germane to this man's future care and well-being.
The article states that the guardians were appointed as his legal guardians in 2002 by a trial court.
With a little bit of googling, I discovered David Brent Hockenberry's father, Robert G. Hockenberry of Huntingdon aged 74 died Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2002. He is survived by
his wife, Ruth Mary Hockenberry, nee Bickle, born 1924,
daughter Donna Ruth Gibboney nee Hockenberry of Belleville born 1949,
son Robert Earl Hockenberry of Petersburg born 1951, and
son David Brent Hockenberry of Huntingdon born 1952.
http://files.usgwarchives.org/pa/huntingdon/obits/february2002obits.txt
I wasn't able to determine who his guardians are. I can't imagine why a trial court would be involved unless there was a dispute over guardianship. Why would there be a competition to be his guardian? And who would have been competing?
I wonder (just guessing here) if David Hockenberry's dad might have set aside some assets, or set up trust fund to support him after the dad's demise: assets which might revert to the estate (and be available to his widow and his other son and daughter) after David's demise.
Follow the money...
I’m still wondering why a trial court would be involved. If, upon the father’s demise, the siblings felt the mother was incapable of caring for him alone, and they sought to take over his care, why would their 77 or 78 year old mother fight it all the way to a trial? Didn’t she trust them to put David’s needs first?
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.