Perfect for a Saturday afternoon: Roosh V lists 30 articles Christians need to read.
Try at least the first two.
In addition to teaching more, private schools tend to keep families intact better than the converged government schools. Families, of course, are unnatural and oppressive according to the nation destroyers.
Family is no different, with different types of schools putting young people on distinctive paths towards family formation and marital stability. Until now, however, we have known little about how different types of schools are linked to students’ family life as adults. The limited research that exists in this area indicates that religious schooling is associated with higher rates of marriage among young adults, but we know less about how different forms of schooling are related to the risk of divorce in adulthood or to non-marital childbearing throughout one’s life.7
In this report, we examine how enrollment in American Catholic, Protestant, secular private, and public schools is associated with different family outcomes later in life.8 We analyze nationally representative data from the Understanding America Study (UAS) and the National Longitudinal Survey 1997 (NLSY97) to explore the links between adults’ prior schooling and their odds of marrying, divorcing, and having a child outside of marriage.
Men and women who have been educated in a private school tend to be more likely to be married, less likely to have ever divorced, and less likely to have had a child outside of wedlock.
The entire REPORT.
The authors conclude: ” students who attend private schools are more likely to forge successful families as adult men and women.” One would suspect that, as with other matters, homeschooled (or unschooled) children do even better by these metrics. Home (school) is where the heart is; the family too.
The other day, following the truck attack in Stockholm, I quipped that Muslims were already offended about backlash from tomorrow’s attack. And tomorrow’s attack hit Cairo during Palm Sunday services at a Coptic church. Forty-three Christians were murdered.
An ISIS suicide bomber detonated outside an Egyptian church after being stopped from entering by three hero policemen in a double Palm Sunday massacre that killed 43 Christians.
CCTV shows the fanatic, dressed in a blue pullover, being turned away from the main gate at St Mark’s in Alexandria and being told to go through the metal detector.
He then passes a female police officer chatting to another woman, and enters a metal detector before an explosion engulfs the area.
The attack, which followed another devastating attack in Tanta, was thought to have been aimed at Pope Tawadros II, leader of the ancient Coptic church, who was worshipping in St Mark’s at the time.
The religion of pieces…
EPA /Daily Mail.
Coptic Christians are maybe 10% of Egypt’s total population. Is that a little concern about minority rights I hear? Of course not. The homoglobos could care less, perhaps even being happy about the carnage as it fuels their scheme to destabilize the Middle East and coerce the West into a strange murder/suicide.
And red-bloodied, beer-bellied Americans don’t care. They don’t know where Egypt is or that there are any Christians in the country. It’s just another bunch of Muslims we outta nuke.
Historically, the Middle East has sustained long periods of inter-religious peace and coexistence, punctuated with short, extreme bouts of persecution. Outside influence (that means “your” government) currently seeks to maintain the current turmoil. Sad.
The target in Cairo was the Coptic Pope, who was present for services. In Sweden, site of the latest mass truck carnage and nightly general chaos, the target was white Swedish children.
A suspected terrorist targeted young children as he drove a hijacked lorry into a crowded shopping street in Stockholm, witnesses claimed last night.
Infants’ buggies were sent “flying through the air”, one Swedish broadcaster reported, as the vehicle zigzagged along the pedestrianised Queen Street shopping district and embedded itself in the window of a department store.
“It swerved from side to side. It didn’t look out of control, it was trying to hit people,” a second witness, Glen Foran, an Australian tourist, told Reuters. “It hit people, it was terrible. It hit a pram with a kid in it, demolished it.”
Of course, as ALWAYS, the primary attacker was well known to the police.
I found, then lost, some amazing comments from Stockholm locals. And I mean AMAZING. Despite a few years of open war in their streets and their children being targeted from massacre, many (most?) Swedes still openly deny reality. (This seems to be a universal Western condition).
The gist is this, and I lump and paraphrase: “It would be nice if our wonderful immigrant guests would reach out to us a little more. These attacks almost make us think they might not like us. I guess more needs to be done, more needs to be given. Poor, poor, confused refugees…”
Maybe, as twisted as his actions were, Anders Breivik was on to something. Maybe more needs to be done – to protect the locals from the invaders.
There is a mild debate, where legal and not presumed “racist”:
“You have one (side) saying ‘This is enough, we can’t have this. We must close the borders, throw everyone out,'” said Ulf Lundgren, a clergyman at Stockholm Cathedral. “Others say, ‘You can’t get security by closing the borders.'”
Stockholm seemed to be returning to normal slowly Sunday. Flags on most public buildings, including Parliament and the Royal Palace, flew at full-staff.
“If people who are here, seeking asylum, and treat us like this, it is not good,” Stockholm resident Lars Holm, 73, said after attending a service at the cathedral. “So now we have to have more security in our society, but still we don’t like to live in bunkers. We want to have, as before, a free life and we welcome people from abroad.”
Following decades of being commanded to be open and diverse, the confused populace is torn between not wanting to be exterminated and not wanting to be seen as a bunch of mean old xenophobes.
Well, dear friends, it is one or the other. Either be free, happy and safe, or be run over and raped to death. Listen to that one carzy side: “close the borders, throw everyone out.” Now.
Hold the green beer! In the interest of political correctness shouldn’t we just call it “Patrick’s Day”? “Saint” is synonymous with Catholicism. That means Christian. Christianity is blasphemy to both the Sharia (our seeming current policy objective) and the Noahide (our actual codified law…seriously). Eh? I didn’t think so.
SAINT Patrick. Google.
Saint Patrick was born a Roman citizen in Britain. At age 16 he was kidnapped and enslaved in Ireland. He suffered his bondage for six years before escaping back to his home. Later, as a priest and a bishop, he returned to Ireland as a missionary of the Church. This in itself is a miracle I think. How many men would return to the land of their forced servitude in order to save perhaps the very same people who had oppressed them?
Saint Patrick’s story may be exactly what we need to remember in our insane politically wrong times. Tolerate the Fiqh and the Sanhedrin but keep an eye on them (through a reticle if necessary). The green beer will surely make the tolerance more tolerable.
Happy Saint Patrick’s day!
abortion, America, Bobby Franklin, children, Christian, church, Constitution, Courts, Devil, Federal Judges, freedom, George Bush, Georgia, God, government, guns, legislation, murder, politicians, press, principles, regulations, Second Amendment, Senate, taxes, The People
Several days ago several of my friends lamented both the constant barrage of stories about abortion and the subject itself. All averredly pro-life they are none-the-less tired of hearing about Planned Abor…Parenthood, pro-choice, pro-life, and broken Republican rhetoric. One asked, “why doesn’t anyone just do something?”
Someone tried. Oddly enough it was an elected Republican from Georgia who actually used his position of power to make a difference. He tried time and again. Failure to him only meant another chance to try again.
He was dead serious about protecting children in addition to championing various other causes of freedom. He was one of the very few living politicians I admired. I knew the man personally. His name was Bobby Franklin.
Robert “Bobby” Franklin represented Georgia’s 43rd House District (Cobb County) from 1997 until his death in 2011.
Bobby Franklin at work. Google.
A self-made businessman he served on the House Banking Committee, among others. At one time he was chairman of the House Reapportionment Committee. He consistently stood for less government and more freedom. He was never shy of controversy.
His most famous stand was for those unborn Georgians. In 2011 he made sure the very first bill in the House hopper was one which would have made abortion a felony punishable by either death or life in prison. See: H.B. 1, 2011. He rightly considered the practice a form of murder.
His hardest critics, had they not been weak cowards, would have possibly tried to murder Bobby himself for his stance. Of course, they resorted to base distortion and lying, going so far as to say Bobby would criminalize ordinary miscarriage. These were and are the same sort of satanists who laugh while discussing chopping up living babies and then selling the parts.
You can read and judge for yourself the would-have-been effects of H.B. 1 via the link above. Here is the pertinent part of the Bill, concerned with protecting the rights of all citizens:
H.B. 1, 2011, GA Gen. Assembly.
Upon his untimely death his detractors still mocked:
Bobby Franklin was the demagogue the Founding Fathers feared and warned us about, a perfect example of the excesses of democracy that would strip the common American citizen of his or her rights.
If you must have a eulogy from me this morning, it will be this, and this only: Bobby Franklin was a danger to democracy and a danger to women and now he’s dead.
Nonsense, all of it. The free people of the state had no better friend.
Bobby did want to strip away certain things from out the overfilled lumber room of Georgia law. He wanted to strip out taxes. He wanted to strip away regulations. He wanted to strip away government involvement in people’s lives – to include abolishing the requirement for a state-issued driver’s license.
Had the ultra-left not been so preoccupied with killing babies they might have recognized Bobby’s position of licenses as similar to those of the 1960’s counter-culture.
“Free people have a common law and constitutional right to travel on the roads and highways that are provided by their government for that purpose,” Franklin’s legislation states. “Licensing of drivers cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of an inalienable right.”
In an interview with CBS Atlanta News, Franklin claimed driver’s licenses are a throw back to oppressive times.
“Agents of the state demanding your papers,” he said. “We’re getting that way here.”
TPM Muckraker, Feb. 2, 2011.
He further proposed other “unthinkable” freedom-centered legislation, to include:
*The sole use of gold or silver as currency (where did he ever get that idea???);
*Taxing and regulating the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta like any other bank;
*Banning forced vaccinations;
*Eliminating the state income tax;
*Eliminating property taxes;
*Banning eminent domain;
*Recognizing that civil government is last and least after family, religion, and community;
*Protecting the right to bear arms and to use them in self-defense;
*Making it legal to carry a firearm into a Georgia church (actually passed three years after his death); and
*Mandating that questions of Constitutional Law be settled by elected officials in the General Assembly rather than the Courts.
Bobby never quite trusted the courts nor lawyers (maybe to include me..). He was not afraid of them and did not worship their decisions as most lawyers do. In fact, his H.B. 1, supra, would have specifically banned federal courts from reviewing his law, as they lacked jurisdiction (true if moot today):
H.B. 1, 2011. Federal courts need not apply.
A little known fact about Bobby Franklin was that he actually wanted to become a Federal District Court Judge. He once called me, during the early 2000s, to ask what the qualifications were and, specifically, if one had to be an attorney. I explained to him he met all the (very few) technical qualifications. There is no requirement that a federal judge of any sort be an attorney. Some of the finest of all American jurists have been (long ago) non-lawyers.
We then discussed the political qualifications. Politically, one does need to be an attorney. One also needs to contribute heavily to a President’s campaign. One must be capable of passing U.S. Senate scrutiny after securing a nomination. I asked him if he thought George Bush (the dimmer) would nominate such an outspoken, relentless champion of liberty. We laughed and he apparently dismissed the idea. That was a shame.
I think what had stirred him to this unlikely career change idea was the flap over the separation of church and state caused by the public display here and there of the Ten Commandments. I’m sure he had other reasons too. He would have made a fantastic judge.
Bobby was a fantastic man. A man in real life in addition to the newspapers and the state house. We attended a men’s wild game dinner at the First Baptist Church in Woodstock together. Then governor Sonny Perdue gave a short sermon before shotguns were raffled off. Sometimes Georgia is a damn fine place! Perdue actually gave a decent homily, concerning the wrath of the devil in our lives: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” 1 Peter 5:8, JKV.
That is a powerful verse and Perdue’s usage was well placed. Powerful also was Bobby Franklin’s response to a joking question asked that night by another speaker. Remember, it was a men’s group. The speaker laughingly asked how many of us were “henpecked.” A thousand or so of us sheepishly raised our hands. Bobby did not. Real. Man.
I found out he was gone one day when I was poking around my Facebook feed and realized Bobby wasn’t on anymore. A Google search revealed his death to me. As could be guessed from his legislative history, Bobby was a staunch Christian. His death was discovered when he failed to show as usual at his church on Sunday morning. He died of well-hidden heart problems. One would have never suspected he took prescription medications of any kind – he was as physically fit as he was steadfast to his principles.
The popular press was a bit kinder than the lunatic left in its obituary:
“He was one of the few politicians who stood by what he believed in, whether you agreed with it or not.” …
“He would want to be remembered first as a person of faith and second as a person who loved his country and loved liberty.” …
“While he certainly was controversial, he was never vitriolic and was never mean. This is a very sad day for Georgia.”
Franklin could also often be a thorn in the side of Republican leadership. While his go-it-alone attitude was rarely problematic, he could tie up committee meetings for hours. A member of the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, he would frequently attempt to add anti-abortion language to unrelated bills to the exasperation of his colleagues.
He also was unafraid to challenge the speaker of the House, an act somewhat akin to challenging a king. On several occasions, even challenging a member of the same party, Franklin would force a vote of the full House in an attempt to overrule the speaker. This was true under both former Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram, and current Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge.
I suppose this is my belated good-bye to Bobby. His loss was a sad blow to Georgia and America. Also, sadly, we will not likely see his kind again.
America, anarchy, bankers, Bush, CAFTA, Christian, Christie, Clinton, Congress, crime, democracy, Democrats, elections, fraud, freedom, George Washington, God, GOP, government, hate, immigrants, Israel, jobs, libertarians, Mencken, NAFTA, Obama, people, politicians, politics, power, President, Rand Paul, republic, Republicans, robots, Romney, Ron Paul, secret, Senate, stupid, trade, Washington
I hate politicians. In Christian terms it is wrong to hate any man. Politicians are less men than rodents. Thus, I feel exonerated in my feelings. Elections are exercises in stupidity and herd-think. Presidential elections are the worst.
H. L. Mencken summed it up best: “All of the great patriots now engaged in edging and squirming their way toward the Presidency of the Republic run true to form. That is to say, they are all extremely wary, and all more or less palpable frauds. What they want, primarily, is the job; the necessary equipment of inescapable issues, immutable principles and soaring ideals can wait until it becomes more certain which way the mob will be whooping.” Mencken, 1920.
The difference between 1920 and 2015 is that, back then, there were people pretending to be true patriots. At some point they dropped the pretense and proceeded from a desire for pure, unadulterated power. The mob of the American people conveniently ignore this fact. The television is just too entertaining to disagree with. The country sinks lower into the sewer of politics.
A political “party” sounds like a fun time until one realizes the term refers not so much to an event as to a lowest, dumbest degenerates ever assembled under the sun (in truth, like all roaches, they prefer the darkness). Washington warned against them. Mencken ridiculed them. The people, ever plumbing the depths of stupidity, embrace them with jealous fervor. It’s “us” Democrats against “them” Republicans and visa versa. Spare the sane the idiocy of it all.
America is dominated by two predominate political parties. They are nominally referred to as conservatives and liberals. As I see it they both liberally dispense what may be conservatively described as bullshit. The people seem to like it.
Third parties exist, apparently to provide comic relief for the big two. I experimented with what I thought the most honest of these alternatives, the Libertarians. Given the choice I would gladly be ruled by Libertarian politicians than those which currently plague us. However, given power, I am sure they would be corrupted by the mainstream of political discourse. Anarchy is the only happy solution. The people do not like happy solutions. Thus, we are suck with the rats and the roaches.
These parties care nothing about you. They’re priorities are: bankers, Israel (Likudniks), and anyone else. Not you. Not me.
I am sick of this G*****ned nonsense and what it to f**king stop. Okay? There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans! They respect and represent neither democracy nor any republic.
(Different approach, same results. Google.)
An illustrative story from the popular news presses:
If the God-fearing Republicans exist to save us from the Godless, communist Democrats, then why are Republicans Rallying to Save Obama’s Secret Trade Deal? You can read more about this phenomenon here and here and here.
I’m not entirely sure what this new “secret” trade deal means for America. But, first, it’s secret. That means bad when it comes from Washington. Second, it’s a trade deal. NAFTA and CAFTA, etc. have given American the SHAFTA. I remember being lied to about NAFTA. The dirty manufacturing jobs of old, they said, would give way to a new world of high-paying service jobs which would benefit everyone.
In truth, we have lost the industrial work, pay and all. In exchange we have gained menial minimum wage employment serving hamburgers and such. Robots and immigrants and Indians now do the productive work for real pay. What a change.
I’m sure the new law – sure to happen – will be more of the same. It supposedly grants the President new powers concerning foreign trade. I understand Obama caught wind of a few, final high-paying jobs left in American and is determined to stamp them out. The displaced workers will receive healthcare and cell phones for the bargain – at a cost.
A few Democrats and Rand Paul (son of the mighty Ron Paul), realizing the potential liabilities of robbing the people of their last shot at the American Dream, have stood in the way. Paul filibustered against the deal in the Senate. His speech fell of deaf and stupid ears. The President will get his way, supported by the “conservative” opposition. Trade will be geared ever towards non-American interests. Americans will lose jobs. Reality TV will continue to be popular among the uneducated rabble.
Just remember this when the election rolls around and the Bush/Romney/Christie machine makes the usual patriotic rumblings. Remember it when Hitlary bashes the GOP for being unsupportive of freedom. Blah, blah. Sounds like the same old BS to me.
Remember, if you can, how the various Democratic Congresses and Bill Clinton ran up the national debt, creating new and useless government programs along the way. George Bush, the dimmer, was elected to change all that. He promptly created new agencies and doubled the debt while commencing new wars everywhere. His Excellency, Barack Hussein Osama, was elected to reverse course. Dutifully, he doubled the debt again while continuing and adding to the wars. Now he wants to finish off the trade work began by Clinton and Bush the Vomiter. I see a conspiracy.
The people, bloated by beer and television see nothing. They hear nothing. They say nothing. One of the new fools (or an old fool) foisted upon us by the elite will be the next President. Business will continue as usual.
Spare me your partisan rhetoric this year and next.
Alexis de Tocqueville, American, Anglo-American, Artcles of Confederation, Atistotle, Benjamin Franklin, Bill of Rights, Blackstone, California, Catholic Church, Christian, Christians, Cicero, civil disobedience, Constitution, Creator, David Miller, Declaration of Independence, Dr. Martin Luther King, due process, Dwight Eisenhower, Edmund Randolf, freedom, George Washington, Georgia, God, Gospel of John, government, graft, greedy banksters, Hobbs, Jesus, justice, Juvenal, King George, law, law school, Leo Strauss, libertarians, Locke, Natural Law, Natural Rights, oppression, Patrick Henry, Plato, Pope Leo XIII, rights, Robinson Crusoe, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, schemes, secession, Socrates, Solon, sovereignty, Summa Theologica, theft, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Treastis on Law, tyranny, Voltaire, Walden
Ninety-Nine percent of lawyers in the United States graduate from law school and practice their profession without much if any consideration of the ultimate underpinnings of the laws, regulations, and processes with which they work. I mean something deeper and more eternal that a mere constitution or the tradition of Anglo-American law. This lack of knowledge is not necessarily their fault. Law schools rarely teach or even mention said underpinnings. Legislatures, executive officers, and courts now operate without the slightest acknowledgment of that from whence they derive their just authority. Most citizens seemed confused about the nature and base concepts of law, rights, and justice generally. This is all forgivable to a fault (especially for the lay audience). Let me tell you briefly about where “law” comes from.
Long ago, policy makers and attorneys such as Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry did understand and acknowledge the source of their governmental efforts and the results thereof. This deeper sense of purpose was never limited to American statesmen. Pre-Americans and even pre-Christians such as William Blackstone, Cicero, Aristotle, and Solon also were aware of the greater power behind their actions.
That power and influence is called “Natural Law,” sometimes referred to as “Natural Rights” and similar names. These are fundamental concepts which are imbued into each human spirit by their Creator. Made-man law is or is supposed to be an expression of the natural law. David Miller, et al., eds, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of political Thought (Oxford 1987). Some argue that the individual rights associated with natural law must be or may be curtailed to a degree in a complex society. Miller, et al, supra. I, like many libertarians, disagree with this notion insofar as one person’s rights do not become an infringement on the rights of another.
So, where did natural law come from? To answer that question let us journey back in time – way back, to the beginning of time, if fact. Natural law along with all principles of science, measure, and understanding were created by God, the Almighty, as a product of His grand universal creation.
The concepts of natural law are, thus, as eternal and fixed as the laws or rules of physics or mathematics. Regarding those rules of “hard” science, humans are on a continuing mission to explore, understand, master, and apply the same. So it is with natural law. Being imperfect and tainted by original sin, it is unlikely that we shall ever have complete mastery of any of these ideas. Therein lies another agony resulting from the original disobedience and the ensuing free will dominated “knowledge” with which mortals outside the garden must grapple. As natural law relates to human behavior and society – “soft” sciences, academically speaking, it is much more difficult to grasp, let alone use than some other universal truths. Four plus four equals eight and gravity almost always attracts separate bodies together. Whether people should have a king or a board of selectmen is a wholly different and subjective problem.
As a note, one need not be a Christian or a believer in any specific faith in order to respect natural law. For those so inclined, just consider it another facet or force of the universe we happen to inhabit. As alluded to above, many, many philosophers and legal scholars and practitioners observed natural law millenia before the founding of the United States and centuries before Christ.
In describing the “visible world” the Catechism of the Catholic Church (“CCC”) (No. 341) describes man’s progressive discovery of the laws of nature as he observes the interaction and beauty of the universe. “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin…” Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, 597; CCC, 1954.
God originally, long after the expulsion from paradise, gave us ten simple Commandments by which to live – they are a direct and further exemplification of natural law. Jesus gave us the most simple explanation possible of natural law with his Law of the Gospel, “new commandment:” “love one another.” John 13:34; CCC, 1970. People, it seems, are unwilling or simply unable to follow clear, simple admonishment. The history of the past twenty centuries bears this out.
As a result of our collective incompetence, we are now subject to laws, regulations, and rules both innumerable and incomprehensible (and mostly unnecessary). However, at their core, if these human statutes are valid, they are based on some interpretation of natural law.
“The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.” CCC, 1979 (entirety). The question for us, is how to interpret and apply these immutable principles as we create civil law. Rest assured that nothing we do will ever be perfect. The best we can strive for is an approximation. Harken though and remember that this whole body of law is contained in our souls; we only need to tap into it when necessary. This never-ending task has been the study of great men throughout history.
In Natural Right and History, Leo Strauss explored the origins and ideas of natural law. He noted Plato’s theory that freedom from and doubt of human law is the “indispensable” beginning of the search for natural law. Strauss, Natural Right and History, pg. 84, U. Chicago Press, 1953. This means “thinking outside the box” about law, rather than civil disobedience – although that may come later. Strauss goes on to differentiate between the “classical” view of the law as espoused by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Saint Thomas Aquinas and the “modern” (17th century and on) views held by Locke, Hobbs, and more contemporary thinkers.
Some of these differences are obviously products of their time and the accumulation and interpretation of previous work. Others are matters of opinion, albeit well-reasoned opinion. St. Thomas’s observations along with those of other Christian theologians are influenced by Biblical and Church teachings; however, this concept would not be wholly lost on ancient Greek or Roman philosophers. In their time, those ancients usually attributed the law to nature itself, with perhaps a whimsical nod to Olympus. As Juvenal quipped: “The wrath of the gods may be great, but it certainly is slow.” Satirae, XIII, 100.
I will go no further, directly, with Strauss’s differentiation. This is the interpretation of Perrin Lovett and is mostly concentrated towards a modern, American view of the law and how it applies to our societal relations.
Before we get back to our America we still need a bit more history. An exhaustive examination of natural law was one of the central themes of St. Thomas Aquinas’s great Treatise on Law, part of his larger Summa Theologica. Expanding upon Plato and Aristotle’s “outside the box” approach, Thomas concludes, with reference assistance of Saint Augustine that law “which is not just seems to be no law at all. Hence a law has as much force as it has justice.” St. Thomas, Treatise on Law, R.J. Henle, S.J., editor, pg. 287, U. Notre Dame Press, 1993. St. Thomas goes on to say that a civil or earthly law with conflicts with natural law is a perversion rather than a law. Thus, did Walden and others, claim a basis for civil disobedience to repugnant laws.
Saint Thomas notes that natural law may be divined directly from principle (i.e. a law against murder would be based on God’s commandment not to kill or the principle that each human has a right to live). The other more subjective method is through examination of generalities. Enter, here, the fuzziness of the human brain. A natural law-compliant statute which prohibits murder may also prescribe punishment for murder; what the punishment should be and how it is applied is a matter of determination based on assessment of the factors of the case, with natural law as a field guide. See: St. Thomas, Treatise, supra, pg 288.
Seemingly, most of the core laws of our nation and our states derive (or did derive)from Biblical or other ancient sources. Most are straightforward in definition. Murder is prohibited in Georgia the same as it is in California (and just about every jurisdiction worldwide). The procedure governing a murder case and punishment following a conviction are also dictated by law. In keeping with natural law, a criminal defendant should be accorded all protections of Due Process, else his conviction, if any, is tainted with perversion. In name and theory at least, American laws and courts have erected elaborate barriers to protect an accused citizen from state malfeasance. Consideration of possible punishments, as well as any type of considerable sub-crime (manslaughter, for example) have been designed (again in theory) to assess the factors and circumstances of each particular case.
Often voices arise in a society, particularly regarding emotionally charged cases, crying for “justice” at all costs. These voices essentially call for lynchings based on such novel theories as: “Everyone knows so and so is guilty!” and “Some people just need killing!” On our quest for natural law, we must put aside emotion and observe the larger picture. That picture encompasses the possibility that even a seemingly guilty criminal may still be innocent; our procedures of justice are the mechanisms for definitive (though imperfect [humans again]) adjudication. “It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” Sir. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1783 (this sentiment has been echoed by Benjamin Franklin and Voltaire to name a few).
Blackstone commented that nothing is more essential to the “common good” than the protection of individual liberties. Blackstone, Commentaries, supra. This reasoning was shared by Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, etc.
Jefferson, of course penned the Declaration of Independence. In its first paragraph our great severing/founding document based the authority of the American people on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The second paragraph is (was) well known: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” (italicized emphasis added). Those rights are the natural rights enjoyed by every human, which need not be necessarily acknowledged by any document and can never be legitimately infringed upon by any government. The rest of the Declaration was dedicated to addressing King George’s abuse of those rights and the implementation of the natural law recourse – secession.
Those were core values on display to the whole world in perhaps the most stunning social experiment in human history. Natural law gave life to the Articles of Confederation, an entity devoted to mutual aid and protection for the betterment of all member states and their respective citizens. Shortly thereafter, the Constitution came into being. Again, some attempted to forge a stronger union with the steel of natural law. Certain of nature’s rights were expressly set forth in the Bill of Rights. This was a case of core values mingling with the fire of powerful government – a dangerous combination. As the two plus centuries have made clear, one government is as capable as another is usurping power for its own ends while concurrently infringing on the rights of its people.
It is when we consider statutes and rules outside of the “core” of our natural human experience that real problems are confronted. Imagine, if you will, a man alone on an island. He is his own society and, if he wishes, his own government. His natural rights are as intact in the middle of the uncharted Pacific as they would be in mid-town Manhattan. He has, for instance, that right to live or for self-preservation. Absent some new addition to his little society, a rule against murder would prove difficult to adhere to; murder is the unlawful, unreasonable, and voluntary killing of a human being by another human being. Absent another person our Islander need not fear murder. He might find himself facing suicide or starvation though and then his rights to his own person would become his chief concern.
This simple Robinson Crusoe example should translate form a desert isle to any more complex society. However, some laws deal with issues not conducive to reason in any circumstance. A bill or statute proposing farm aid to certain large corporations based on their stated financial needs, the aid to come from either taking directly from the rest of society or by decreasing the value of that society’s currency (if the currency be fiat in nature) is a completely different, non-core matter. However, politics, financial tricks, and smoke and mirrors aside, such a dilemma may still be decided along natural lines. Governments today generally do not have legitimate money to give away nor are they capable of productively earning such monies. A giveaway scheme necessarily involves taking from someone else. Is this not theft? Is theft not forbidden by the Creator’s Law? Heaven aside, the earthly consideration here is one of justice.
“All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.” Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 325 B.C. Justice would seem to forbid stealing from one group to pay off another, no matter how well-connected the recieving class might be. You, the reader, must know that our government has long since abandoned this rational debate. As a result we have those laws innumerable. Sadly, this has been a long-standing problem. “The more laws, the less justice.” Cicero, De Officies, 44 B.C.
As mentioned earlier, the wisdom of the ancients was once of common knowledge and practice in our Western world. George Washington wrote, “The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of Government.” Geo. Washington, Letter to Edmond Randolph, 1789. After his visit to America, Alexis Comte de Tocqueville stated: “When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind.” de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835.
Common sense even protruded into the Twentieth Century. One who knew best, Dwight Eisenhower said, “Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.” Eisenhower, radio address, 1957. Universally speaking: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from the Birmingham, AL Jail, 1963.
Unfortunately for us, the voices of justice and reason have been growing steadily fewer and father between. Today our American government bears almost no resemblance to that which was established long ago while memories of tyranny were still fresh. Rather than engage in justice, let alone its quest, our politicians constantly engage in vote-buying schemes of unimaginable proportions. Solon’s observation has never been truer: “Laws are like spider’s webs which, if anything small falls into them they ensnare it, but large things break through and escape.” Quoted by Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, 3rd Cent. A.D.
For a final example, this analogy to a spider web is demonstrated time and again in the new Amerika. When greedy bankers make horrible, criminal (but foreseeable) mistakes and risk the financial ruin of the world, they are bailed out and pass freely through our laws. The poor, middle class, and average citizens are caught, seemingly forever, in a legal cesspool of debt and oppression.
(Natural law is as common as the beauty of Nature itself)
I will not end on a sour note. Rather, I offer a humble solution. If we are to be free as God’s children are supposed to be, we must cast off the burdensome trappings of our current governments. For that process to begin our citizens must each commence their individual quests throughout their spirits for natural law and justice. In particular, our lawyers and law students need to demand formal classical education, or else, they must take it upon themselves to learn what has been lost. While all of you have great deal of research and reflection to do and I may follow-up with more reasoning and explanations, I hope this article starts the process.