From whence does your “right to [insert here]” flow?
For serious times.
“The Law of Nature or Natural Law is defined as, “The divine will, or the dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity that there is in any act, according to its suitableness or un-suitableness to a reasonable nature. Sometimes used of the law of human reason, in contradistinction to the revealed law, and sometimes of both, in contradistinction to positive law.”
Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state.
Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.
Natural rights professes itself to be “the presumption of liberty”.
In its entirety here, including Part One, Two & Three of Audio:
“Seek ye His Kingdom and His Righteousness”
Nice blog post. The main issue for those who even believe in God are the differences which will further subdivide them. Supposed common ground is only when necessary and expedient. Catholic Franco (or the Croats or Nazis) had no problem enlisting Muslims. Christians had no problems killing each other over religious differences in France or Northern Ireland for centuries. Most modern Muslim countries don’t explicitly ban people of other religions from visiting (except for the Saud keeping out Israeli passport holders and known Jews) but don’t allow open practice of other religions or conversion.
Christianity in the Patriot movement is just as fractured today as ever and both religious and secular alike can’t even agree on defending the Constitution.
I will not submit to any human law be it sharia, mosaic, constitutional, or ‘several other promising avenues for crafting laws’. The Natural Law is not specified by human writings, especially in Wikipedia. Honestly, I almost thought that was a joke.
The writer of the article knows not the Natural Law because he doesn’t know the author. This is not an insult. If you claim to be Christian, if I were you, I would continue to seek the Christ. Brotherly advice and I am truly saddened.
I understand why new ‘avenues’ are desirable in an increasingly secular society. The need to explain to the godless that they should follow THE RULES of men is at the very core foundation of satan’s power. (islam anybody?)
The Natural Law re-arose during the enlightenment in west because we embraced the author. The Natural Law is dead in the west because we have rejected the author. I would love to talk to the writer of the article. There so much wrong it that it requires meat space to discuss correctly. America is dying. This sucks. The article confirms why our trajectory is down. We can’t have His law without Him.
I liked the article. It’s very thought provoking. Nothing has done more to confirm my covenant with God all week. Thanks.
He is of the order of Melchisedec. I have my King and His law is written on my heart. I will follow no man outside of His will.
If Natural Law is not the truth, or the basis of our rights, it begs several questions.
There’s only two ways law can exist, man-made law via legislative action or court-room via legal precedent.
If Natural law does not exist, then please show me the legal precedent or legislative action the Founders of this country specifically cited and /or referenced which gives the second amendment it’s authority as law.
Because if natural law is not a bonafide truth, then it leaves only legislative action or legal precedent as a source of authority for the second amendment to have authority as law.
Answer: there is no precedent or legislative precedent cited or existing for the second amendment to have authority as law. .
It begs the next question: since there’s no man-made precedent which gives the second amendment authority as law, where then does it derive it’s authority as law if Natural Law from inherent rights is not its source?
Answer: there is no answer to that question outside of a natural law which derives it’s authority as law from natural or inherent rights assigned to an individual by that individuals ‘creator’
natural law as identified by the Founders of this country and utilized as the founding law of this country do not align with the lies of political ideologies such as islam.
Nowhere within the founding laws of this country does it authorize the behaviors authorized and called for within ideologies such as islam.
It is a lie to say natural law is false simply because political ideologies such as islam claim they were founded by “god”.
You’ll note the founders of this country used the term ‘creator” rather than “God” as an attempt to avoid the bigotry and justifications hidden behind religious claims as a means of justifying the attainment of power.
This is incredibly depressing reasoning and frankly heretical. How refreshing. Until we acknowledge the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob above all others, we are doomed to wander aimlessly adrift in the desert at best or as slaves to those who have no problem following the enemy of God.
What? Cascade hasn’t heard of Ayn Rand?
I don’t know if my response posted over there, so my reply to the author:
You set up a strawman and then burn him down. Wikipedia is a notoriously inaccurate site to use as a reference. It’s NOT allowed as a citation in any reputable college, and will get you an F for using it as a citation on a university level paper.
In this case, Wiki is a terrible source.
Beyond that, you should read this:
Natural moral law and natural legal law are two different animals, although they intersect. I believe the legal aspect takes precedence here, although the moral component is not to be ignored.
Know the difference. You haven’t portrayed either correctly.
However, I understand your point. How about considering a secular concept such as the Zero Aggression Principle, like true libertarians do?
“A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any
circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.
Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.”
— L. Neil Smith
Formerly called the “Non-Aggression Principle”, or “NAP”, there are four basic corollaries:
– No aggression
– No theft
– No fraud
– No malicious trespassing
Any of these may be met with appropriate force, including deadly force, if absolutely necessary. Gauge your response accordingly, and by any means necessary.
We also have the concepts of Jeffersonian Liberty and a near-dead Constitution at our disposal. I can live with that combination and the ZAP. I could say more, but that should suffice for now.
Bottom line, to make your point, it might come down to surprise, superior firepower, and an overwhelming use of force. The times, they are a’ changin’ …
Unpopularity, ignorance, inconvenience do not mitigate the truth, or make it irrelevant.
Leaving God out of it, natural law is still persuasive to those who study human nature, and Nature, as they are and not as some demagogue wishes them to be. Alternatives to the truth are dissembling and lies.
That the truth is most often counter to our carnal desires and self importance leads to willful ignorance and is at the very core of human frailty serving and enabling all the evil that ever is.
Great kudos and thanks to Fred, Tom Wolff and Christopher just above for saying, and so much better, what I merely sketched out.
Seems to be more than just natural law at play. Being reduced to the least common denominator is unnerving. Still worth the journey.
Realising we can not prepare for everthing ‘ourselves.’
Seeing we have been led astray, through generations as foretold.
Become set-apart. Recognise the lies of the world. Pray for others to do the same.
Fro the barrel of my gun.
fuck the cops.
they are scum.
Basically, it all boils down to fighting for your favorite brand of brainwashing.
I made this comment to the author of that diatribe on cascadefreezone:
As an atheist, I still am capable of accepting and understanding the value – the necessity – of adhering to the Judeo-Christian moral code. You can certainly make a big deal about rejecting a deity, and making the ridiculous and particularly vile comparison between the make-believe religion of islam (with its long butcher’s list of sexual perversions that its “god” allah has given his blessing to, along with its cry of “Death to the infidel, never coexistence”) and that of Christianity, but in the end, we need no excuse, no religion, but merely reason and common sense to understand the rights an individual possesses simply by existing. Rights that the Left, the collective, wishes to make the world believe should be subservient to the needs of the bleating masses.
If it pains you to call them “natural rights”, follow the meme of the Left and make up another name for them. Just understand you violate them at your own peril, as has been demonstrated at Runnymead and Yorktown. We don’t need an emancipation proclamation to tell us we need not be slaves to any government, including our own.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,637 other followers