Posted on 12/01/2001 10:28:24 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
By Gary L. Morella
I have a question for those who believe that the atheistic worship of the state is to be recommended over an appreciation of a "higher" or "natural" law as the foundation for the rights that government ought to secure for the common good.
Natural law can be readily appreciated in the American experience, given the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary ... to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ..."
Natural law is something above power or force that gives content to the notion of justice. This notion suggests that there is a higher law by which the positive law of the state is to be measured and judged. Slavery was ultimately abolished in America because of the recognition of this "higher law."
Thomas Aquinas sets the most famous variation of this approach in his Summa Theologica. His natural law is a participation in the wisdom and goodness of God by the human person, formed in the image of the Creator. It expresses the dignity of the person and forms the basis of human rights and fundamental duties. This was the approach later used by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," which contains references to Aquinas.
Simply put, what has state worship done for us lately? We only have to look at recent history for an answer. We saw the deaths of six million Jews and 20 million Ukrainians in the concentration camps and gulags of Hitler and Stalin, respectively. Today, we see the killing of 40 million innocents in what should be their safest place of refuge, their mothers' wombs.
If the state is the final arbiter of the law, the sole dispenser of rights, we're in big trouble, given the lessons of history. The state can easily take these rights away with catastrophic consequences. This is inevitable when each man is a universe unto himself, courtesy of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which ignored a very important question: What happens when each citizen's "personal universe of rights" collides with another's? In the absence of some absolute, immutable, higher law, knowable through reason and not just faith, we're left with anarchy.
But more to the point, the traditionally recognized goal of a respected political regime is the common good. Does killing our children when they're most vulnerable and promoting aberrant behavior that leads to physical ruin meet that goal?
The fact is that ignorance of the necessity for human law to be rooted in the natural law has led to the major ills plaguing society today. This has nothing to do with theocracy. It has everything to do with common sense and the rule of right reason. This is obvious to any Christian who knows that God's supreme gift to us was the opportunity to choose him freely.
Interestingly, those decrying theocracies have no problem accepting a "state religion of amorality," which is promoted by demagogues who won't stand for any opposition. This is the current state of affairs in a "politically correct" but "morally bankrupt" America for which we can thank the example of the former "adolescent-in-chief," whose main claim to fame was making the country more comfortable with its vices.
Let's leave Hooker vs. Law out of it. It appears to us that we follow Him (in some cases a direct act may seem to us that God has called, of course, but this is, I think, less common), and mastering the low precludes mastering the high.
Most of the atheists I know are highly intelligent. They lack neither analytical ability nor intellect. They only lack faith. Faith may well be a gift from God, and I do not know why some receive this gift and some don't, or why some ask for the gift while others do not. I was an atheist at one time too, in college and med school.
Augustine said something like "usually the man who refuses to believe in God has a reason for wishing He did not exist."
Some atheists are good decent moral people. Some atheists choose atheism, because it frees them from any moral constraints of Judeo-Christian morality, which is based on the self-revelation of a Creator-God.
Must the spirit be quickened in order to discern spiritual versus carnal?
How can flesh discern that which is spiritual? If, as the Word teaches us, that we are all born spiritually dead, Who gives that spirit life so that it can see?
Since man does not have the power to quicken the spirit, which is dead from birth, then there is no way that it can choose anything.
Therefore, He chooses us, and we are unable to choose Him.
From our perspective, we atheists think you theists have added an unnecessary layer of myth to rationalize your otherwise good & true belief in moral Truth. We think the Truth stands on its own as objective reality without needing any help from an imaginary being.
The problem for both strains of natural law is that these objective individual rights & the best moral codes - and especially their implications in the real world - are not always self evident. In many cases they need to be learned through hard experience. Luckily we have thousands of years of history to draw upon, and many parallel experiments going on today between competing cultures, subcultures & political systems. For example, I think we can at least agree that generic western-style secular pluralistic democracy's slow-but-sure takeover of the world is a Good Thing.
This is why the author's equation of atheism with statism is so dishonest in our opinion. (But maybe he just never thought of the philosophical fundamentals in that way - so many religious people on FR apparently never have either!)
Good comments. Thanks. Just one question. For an theist, what is Objective Truth? And what happens when two atheists disagree on what constitues Truth, especially when such disagreement touches on, say, the legality of abortion?
Should have said "For an atheist, what is Objective Truth?"
Well, objective truth is either a fact that's plainly evident to the senses, or logically derivable from such facts. I would hope that it would be the same for a theist. Unless you want to define "Objective Truth" as "whatever I believe God told me"! I think of objective truth as something different in kind from "revealed truth", which is at the base of theism.
And what happens when two atheists disagree on what constitues Truth, especially when such disagreement touches on, say, the legality of abortion?
Basically by appealing to whatever truths they can agree on from the start, and then identifying where we disagree. Then we must analyze what the implications would be for human life if we consistently followed one set of premises vs. the other.
That's where may people trip up, IMO: Applying rules consistently. It's so easy to take something like "enlightened self interest" & apply it self-servingly so that you rationalize one set of rules for yourself & a different set of rules for everyone else; or applying it differently when it's easy for you vs. when it's difficult. But a set of rules (as in a moral code) means nothing if it's not consistent.
A theist can fall into the same trap: From what I've learned about Islam lately, it seems like the whole religion is infected with self-serving applications of morality!
As for abortion (hoping it doesn't run too much off on a tangent!) I'm very comfortable with calling the end of a person's life at the moment their brain stops functioning for the last time. Therefore I am forced to define the beginning of their life as the point when their brain starts functioning for the first time. IOW, around 8 weeks at the earliest.
I find it very hard to rationalize killing a fetus after that point, without instantly destroying the rights of an adult person who will die if they're taken off life support.
Speaking of consistency, I want to run out and get started on my, ah, Christmas shopping. Happy to continue later if you want...
No, because they reject the Holy Spirit. Seeing means understanding in this passage. Even though they hear, their hearts are hardened. That is a condition they developed on their own.
"Does the Holy Spirit move in vain?"
Sometimes. From my other post...The Holy Spirit comes to all, even those that never hear about Jesus. Only rejection of the Spirit results in condemnation. Jesus only condemns those that reject the Spirit.
"Must the spirit be quickened in order to discern spiritual versus carnal? "
Being able to discern between the spiritual and carnal is an ability that occurs in your own mind. What power the Holy Spirit must exert, to help in the process depends on the condition of your mind and heart. The effect of the Holy Spirit is revelation in your own mind.
"How can flesh discern that which is spiritual? "
The guide in any mental reasoning is the moral code embodied in the 10 commandments, summed in 2 by Christ.
" If, as the Word teaches us, that we are all born spiritually dead, Who gives that spirit life so that it can see?"
The Father.
"Since man does not have the power to quicken the spirit, which is dead from birth, then there is no way that it can choose anything. Therefore, He chooses us, and we are unable to choose Him."
He chose us when He created us and gave us our Free will.
The author only uses the phrase "atheistic worship" of the state.
Never does this author use the word "atheist" or "atheism."
The editor of the paper, and only the editor, used the word "atheism" when he titled the editorial in his paper.
As I have said above, this author takes great care to delineate those of whom he is speaking. He is speaking of statists who have an "atheistic worship" of the state.
Never does he insult atheists themselves.
Maybe the phrase "atheistic worship" of the state is unfortunate and causes you to misinterpret his essay, but his essay is clear and its target is well delineated.
It IS unfortunate that the liberal editors chose the title for this article that they did, but then the problem you may have would be with the editors, NOT the author or his basic premise.
I must admit that this has been one of the few pleasurable exchanges I have seen on FR between "us theists" and "you atheists." Thank you.
As you said, wandering down this path is risky, but you chose it ;-)
Is not the choice of brain activity as sole arbiter of "life" a bit too subjective for an atheist who leans on "Objective Truth?"
As a physician, I have a hard time with that definition, for, as you seemed to be aware, there are many adults who have little or no brain activity (as well as some on FR :-), and thus may be candidates for "adult abortion."
Where? On FR? -- False. -- Most big government advocates here are also outspoken advocates of organized religions of one sort or another.
I like to think that the Decalogue is a fair summary of the Natural Law from a Judeo-Christian perspective, with "Do unto others ..." thrown in for good measure. Honestly I was not aware that modern atheistic thought puts much emphasis on a natural law. Can you give a thumbnail sketch of that natural law on which atheists of good will would agree, and a brief explanation of the means by which an atheist may derive a conception of natural law? This is not a rhetorical question, for it bears upon the eastblishment of a consensus of "Objective Truth" between the theist and the atheist.
You made this statement, didn't you?
We will never be truely free until we have manditory Christian prayer in our public schools.
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.