Some Merry Christmas, sorry kidds...
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.
I can speak for other FReepers, but because anyone anywhere who has access to the internet can read what's posted on Free Republic, I don't post my name. Or address, or credit card numbers. Call me a privacy crank if you will, but that's the reason.
Just above, I posted tables of all the democide pre 20th century, from an objective unbiased researcher. Please direct me to the line or lines that prove this ridiculous statement. You are full of BS.
Oh, I missed this statement. It pretty much guts any credibility you have on this forum. But thank you for sharing your personal opinion none-the-less. May God Bless you abundantly.
Do you like surprises? I hope so...
Here I find the only difference between you and the other anti-Catholic bigots on FR. Gosh, its almost refreshing...
i will thank my god for the strength to not respond to you in a way that i would regret later. my god just worked a miracle!
With respect to your first point, I agree. I strongly suspect that many reaching the level of Osama really don't believe in the divinity their own religion. Some simply believe that nothing else is any better. In fact I think that it's that likely recognition by Osama and many of the hijackers that's a key element in making them evil. I think that to label someone or something evil, intent is required. If they really believed that they were doing Gods work, I wouldn't apply the "evil" label to them. Personally, I think some do and some don't believe.
Regarding your second point, the validity of religious tenets is not the measure of whether its believers are theists or atheists. One only has to believe that their theology is divine for them to be a theist. The failings of their theology may make them dead wrong and destructive (and some claim evil), but it does not make them atheists.
"If you murder innocents by the millions, you are not Christian" - MorellaLOL, That's hilarious! Though technically, this pope hasn't killed innocents, but many have and therefore were "Non-Catholic Popes".Popes have killed millions of innocents.
Therefore, Popes are not Christians.
Catholics are Christians.
So, the Pope is not Catholic.
The author gets himself into a hole and just keeps digging. proud2bRC loyally follows right along.
Personally, I never thought that people would care, other than some rare nut who might want to do me harm. I'm listed in the phone book, so from my name and city comes my address and phone number.
A name doesn’t convey any useful information about me. I've only signed my name a few times when I made a personal connection with someone, but until now, no one has asked.
Still waiting on Mr. Morella's appearance regarding #146…
i agree with your argument and thanks for your thoughts. my intent was to say that many would view muslims as being 'like' atheists since they follow a god different than the true god. by that, i mean that they have principles and values, like many atheists do. but they are not motivated by a 'living' god, so there is more of a chance that the motivation to serve self intervenes.
I understand your concerns, and think they're valid. Just to clarify something just now brought up, I think Objectivists would say that the same natural forces, that our principles are derived from, affect us throughout or lives. (In some ways, similar to actions of a living God)
They would say that over the long run, those objectively derived principles demonstrate that it's not in our best interests to pursue behavior that's corrupt, predatory, greedy, etc… And living in a society that values principles that promote life is in our best interests. Therefore violating those principles is by definition not 'self-serving' because it contributes to our destruction.
In that line of thinking, what's really good for the self is generally good for the society. The challenge is to determine what's really good. Objectivists believe that we can learn what's right and what's wrong through observation and reasoning, guided by education. (Perhaps many religions are more stable in this regard. Objectivism's too new to know for sure.)
I'm not trying to challenge you or convert you. I realize what most people understand 'self-serving' to mean, and I'm not quite an Objectivist myself. I just want you to understand the reasoning behind the pursuit of principles that really are 'self-serving'.
Hmmmm...I had posted a link to his site for you, or at least I had typed it in and hit "Post Reply." I never checked to see if it was indeed on here. Sorry, I'm not sure why it failed to load...
I spoke with Gary at length yesterday. He offered to converse with you at length, if you would just contact him via his web site and the email address listed there:
"If one of them has the courage to sign his name to his suppositions and criticism, then I am more than happy to dialog with him. And with the help of God, for His glory alone, and through the intercession of Mary, and Saint Joseph, all the Archangels, Angels, and Saints, I will piecemeal logically destroy his arguments for the sake of his immortal soul. It has been my experience, however, that such emperors want disguises to keep people from seeing that they're not wearing any clothes..."
…I don't write to groups. Nor will I allow any responses of mine to you to be posted on any group….The second clip is from the Mr. Morella's correspondence in which he offered only to speak with me if I didn't make it public as I had warned. (Email correspondence posted in its entirety below.)
Personally, if I had published an article and had its premise slaughtered publicly, I'd want to defend it publicly. I'd be interested in finding the truth, even if it meant admitting an error. I've done it before. In fact, I'd question my association with someone who refused to do so, but maybe that's just me.
It must be a real rush, cruising those college campi as a lecturing crusader, getting interviewed by the media and having articles published in journals. The momentum behind all that must be intoxicating! I doubt there'd be any interruption at all in that momentum by an error or two discovered in the basic premise behind the message,… as long as one doesn't have to account for it publicly,… and have it recorded permanently.
Hmmm, I wonder how much honor I'd be willing to sacrifice for such an opportunity.
Here's our email corresondence from today:
elfman2 to Gary Morella
"Dear Mr. Morella,My name is Bill Carson. We have a disagreement regarding one of your articles that is the subject of public debate on Free Republic. As you know, Brian Kopp has acted as an intermediary, alerting you to the discussion and has posted one of your replies. He informs me that you wish to be contacted directly in this matter.
Would you please respond to my criticism of your article and your subsequent comments that I posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/581856/posts?page=146#146 in #146 under my screen name of elfman2. You have to excuse the tone of my reply. It was appropriate under the circumstances.
I believe that a disagreement of a public issue that begins in public should be resolved in public. I would prefer that your reply was posted to the discussion thread referenced above. You may get an account in only an minute or two here: http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/register . If you prefer to not become a member of Free Republic please be aware that I may post any relevant correspondence of ours to that thread.
Regards,
Bill Carson "
Gary Morella to elfman2
"If you want a response, Mr. Carson, you talk to me personally, and make your case to me directly. I don't write to groups. Nor will I allow any responses of mine to you to be posted on any group. It is between you and me.So if you want to dialog, I will be more than happy to accom[m]odate you.
Gary Morella ""
You have earned a place in my royal guard.
What source documents are you summarizing these results from?
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.