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.
What you believe... think-act does not exist!Not especially persuasive. What do you mean by "think-act"?
If true, only by default. I would have preferred that we resolved the issue. Best regards.
Emotionally unstable. Good luck.
Do you think the opposite of love is hate?No, of course not. Anyone with a decent education knows: The opposite of love is indifference.
Atheists(negative) are God Haters...my original post!
For further clarification you can read my post #63.
Regards
Why all the trouble---who cares...indifference right?
God alone is judge...I only lost my temper at the end. The atheists resorted to ad hominem towards the author quite early.
As far as needing help, all of us do, but some are too proud to admit it.
Emotionally unstable? If righteous indignation is such than emotionally unstable is a badge I will wear with pride.
Moralizing? If that is your only answer to elfman's violation of another's trust, then you too fulfill your role quite well as a typical atheist.
--Still proud2bRC
Wrong again. And pitiful.
Doctors refused to vaccinate against smallpox - the Church was against vaccination, how many died of this disease?
Bubonic plague - Church's role in treatment, disposal of bodies - methodology...
Your numbers include religious-related massacres, wars and conflicts...
Try again...
Emotionally unstable was generous. You're simply lying to defend a lie.
Morella slandered and lied in the first sentence. (Proven in #146) So people attacked him.
If a reporter warns a politician that everything he says may be on the record because they think it should be public, and the politician's next sentence is, "I want this off the record: 'bla bla bla…'", there's nothing wrong with reporting it.
But Morella leaves that part out when claiming that he has been wronged and I'm therefore "inherently dishonest". Just like Bill Clinton, saying there "IS" no sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinski, it's intended to leave a false impression. Therefore, it's a lie. Bill Clinton lied. Morrella is lying.
Because I warned him that I may print it, I did not "violate another's trust" as YOU claim. Your remark is like when Bill Clinton said to the nation, "Although my earlier statements were technically accurate, they were less than forthcoming". Bull. Critical details were deleted to give the wrong meaning. So he lied. You leave out that important warning I gave Morella. So you are now lying.
I don't have to pull you out of your denial and get you to say "uncle" on this. It's on the record, and everyone can see it. Now as you and Morrella plan your publicity tour, attacking atheist with lies, you'll be dependent on keeping the truth suppressed with more lies. You won't direct anyone to this thread, you'll just lie about it, hoping it doesn't come to light or if so, not too often.
Curious, that puts you on,… the dark side. That's not the role of a Christian.
I have a great deal of respect for all Christians who live their lives with piety. I don’t see anything (other than maybe misplaced loyalty) worth respecting you for here. Only Fear (afraid to defend #146 on your own), bitterness, and now lying. I don't see any Christianity in your behavior here at all. Just some short sightedly self-serving anger that gets you the privilege of mopping up after a fanatical egomaniac who's too much of a slippery fast talking coward to defend his own lies publicly in a reasoned way.
Morella claimed to be willing to debate, but not here because he doesn't want to have to deal with "my cheerleaders" But this forum's probably 90% populated by conservative Christians. Notice how few have come to either your or Morella's defense.
Christian's are overwhelmingly good people. They know trash when they see it. Your behavior no more represents Christians than that of Osama represents Muslims.
The opposite of love is indifference...very good--agnosticism(neutral)!Would I be right in thinking that English isn't your first language? Agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism. Gnosticism is not belief in God, per se, it is belief in esoteric knowledge (which can include God, although several centuries ago the Gnostics were a small, heretical Christian sect, persecuted and sometimes executed by the mainstream). Gnosticism is the belief that we can, and probably do, know the truth about what lies beyond the material plane - and some gnostics believe that the truth is a combination of world religions (progressive revelation, that kind of thing), other subscribe to one particular religion and believe in one answer (the Christian God, the Jewish one, the Muslim one, the Hindu pantheon, the wonderful world of Wicca, etc). An agnostic believes either that nothing is known - ie, we don't know the truth yet, none of the existing world religions ring true - or that we can't be sure about what is known - so, we might have the truth available to us, but we have no way of telling that it is the truth.
Atheists(negative) are God Haters...my original post!You're going round in circles. It really is most amusing. I ask again, how is it possible to hate something that doesn't exist? To hate God, one would have to believe in him. One who believed in and hated God would be... a Satanist, presumably. A worshipper of the Fallen Angel. I don't believe in him, either (The Usual Suspects not withstanding).
A neurotic denies--avoids reality(meaning)--a psychotic escapes all realtiy--meaning(self-other than reality delusion--fantasy)!And your point is...? That all religious people fall into one of these two categories? I think that's a little harsh, though not entirely inaccurate. But there's still time - join us atheists in the real world.
You must be a bi-theist...Why?
half-agnostic/half atheist---Well, I'll go as far as admitting that the agnostics are right when they say it's impossible to prove the matter one way or another - certainly not yet, and theoretically never (since, by definition, you can't prove a negative, you can't prove that God doesn't doesn't exist, and no matter how unlikely or supurfluous he seems there's always room for debate). But I'd argue all the evidence suggests there's no design and no designer.
or a schizo!!You still haven't answered my question.
But I'd argue all the evidence suggests there's no design and no designer...oh really?
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.