[Robert_Paulson2]

What is the basis of just law?

---

1. ask your friendly neighborhood imam... and he will tell you mohammet, the koran and allah.
2. ask a hasidic jew, and he will tell you the torah.
3. ask a medieval european and you might hear "God and King Richard"
4. Ask a member of the Church of England in 1778, and you might hear "God and King George".
5. Ask a naturalist of colonial times, they might say "nature and/or nature's God, or nature AS God." looking to the natural drives of mankind as a ruler, freedom, liberty, and zones of personal anarchy.
6. Ask a socialist and you will hear 'the greater good, the good of the children, or the general welfare'
7. Ask a christian socialist (you know, "true" conservatives) and you may hear "the bible, the church, and its leaders who make moral decrees from the shores of another country, or apparently a stone monument in a courthouse in Alabama and the religious organizations that put it there."

Take your pick. Who you ask will determine your answer.

now answer this... What leads anyone to believe there was ever such a thing as ANY just law?

Scripture itself seems to indicate that "by the law shall no flesh be justified." The law of moses commanded the woman taken in adultery was to be stoned. Jesus ruled out the death penalty for that woman... apparently he, being God could rule justly, where mankind was not able.

We don't have an indisputable basis for human law being just. But we sure as heck fight about it a lot. No matter where YOU come down on fighting bout the basis, folks who are just as smart and learned will find room for disagreement.

Suffice it to say what is NOT the basis for just law... a stone monument in some court building in Alabama, kept by a Judge who is spending 125,000,000 to make a point that none of us can reach full consensus on.

the lemon test will be applied.

the supremes will either allow it to stay or not.

the judge will obey the ruling or face the appropriate consequences of the law he swore to uphold.

or the judge will get the ok from the supremes on the monolith as a testimony to history (ok by me really) with no endorsement of religion per se... and life will go on.

I can see the historical monlolith, art thingie, unless folks in his state have reason to believe it's a religious symbol... and win their day in court.

it is ridiculous... in some ways, understandable in others.

Salem Oregon, two years ago, would not light a christmas tree in the capitol, because it upset the tree huggers and wiccans...

WE need to resolve it once for all. Either everybody gets a monument or nobody does. endorsement of an particular religion, will never pass muster in the nation, though it may in the past.

We are no longer a homogenous mixture of various "christian" sects... but a multi-nationalist, multi-faithed pluralist republic.

...

[cornelis]

All things are disputable, even truth. But that we dispute things is more a matter of election (for good or ill) and not an indication of the absence of a basis for just law.

Relativity of opinion is relativity of opinion, not a basis for law.