tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4745994407971425737..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: A Primer on Natural LawBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50419413422327016322020-03-09T03:14:46.231-06:002020-03-09T03:14:46.231-06:00Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice...Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice useful information!<br /><br />Giaonhan247 chuyên dịch vụ <a href="https://images.google.is/url?q=https://giaonhan247.vn/cach-order-hang-my.html" rel="nofollow">mua hàng mỹ</a> từ dịch vụ <a href="http://www.google.com.mt/url?q=https://giaonhan247.vn/order-hang-my.html" rel="nofollow">order hàng mỹ</a> hay nhận mua <a href="http://www.google.cat/url?q=https://giaonhan247.vn/cach-mua-nuoc-hoa-phap-chinh-hang-o-tai-viet-nam.html" rel="nofollow">nước hoa pháp</a> từ website nổi tiếng hàng đầu nước Mỹ <a href="http://www.google.co.ug/url?q=https://giaonhan247.vn/cach-mua-hang-tren-ebay.html" rel="nofollow">mua hàng ebay</a> ship về VN uy tín, giá rẻ.giaonhan247https://www.blogger.com/profile/13959680401612184470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42992013521593478992013-08-10T10:45:12.014-06:002013-08-10T10:45:12.014-06:00And, to broaden the horizons a little bit - and by...And, to broaden the horizons a little bit - and by a little bit I mean a lot - I'd recommend Anthony Pagden's <i>The Enlightenment And Why It Still Matters</i> as highlighted a bit ago by Jon <i>via</i> John Fea's place.(1)<br /><br />Some other sources that might be useful can be found at <i>Religion in American History</i>.(2)<br /><br />1)http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-enlightenment-and-why-it-still.html<br /><br />2) <br />http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2013/08/reviewing-schlereths-age-of-infidels.htmljimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-34141489305227508542013-08-10T10:18:17.909-06:002013-08-10T10:18:17.909-06:00* You can still find the natural law in philosophy...* You can still find the natural law in philosophy, law and literature departments to varying degrees, even in the secular universities run by the commie socialists. It <i>is</i> a pity that more people don’t study the humanities. And then there’s the basic crash course all Americans (and many ferners) get - as you unironically point out: <i>“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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”</i><br /><br />** I would have thrown in some other tropes such as “heathen secularist” but they just didn’t have any alliterative magic.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17041462350610025822013-08-10T10:17:20.567-06:002013-08-10T10:17:20.567-06:00Tom – “Jim, I'd enjoy demolishing your vague l...Tom – <i>“Jim, I'd enjoy demolishing your vague left-wing constructions if it didn't bum me out that you have no idea what the Founding theology was about. And on the other side, our old friend OFT, a right-wing Christian fundamentalist doesn't get it either.”</i><br /><br />I know that you like to set yourself up as the guy in the middle pushing tirelessly toward the ever elusive Metaphysical Truth that only you can correctly divine, but you do have a dog in the fight. Your dog’s name is Anti-Modernism and All That It Entails. Must be a bitch when the dog gets out of the yard and you have to run around the neighborhood calling out, <i>“Here Anti-Modernism and All That It Entails, come on fella.”</i> I assume though that the neighbors are amused. Or scared. I'd rethink Fido.<br /><br />By your own writing you are a conservative Catholic firmly molded in the Thomist tradition – although currently flirting with a Calvinist political influence (maybe “flirting” is too mild – a word of wisdom, sooner or later the “I’m working late at the office” excuses will wear thin and Thomas will be devastated).<br /><br />Your idea of doing history is more like being the loyal and tenacious uber-salesman for you side in the culture wars.<br /><br />Tom – <i>“It's a failure of our education system, a hole in the Public Discussion*. You want to abandon ‘Natural Law?’”</i><br /><br />How much time have you spent in the “education system” as the foundation of your understanding? Or, my righty buddy, are you just repeating crap that right wingers repeat <i>ad nauseum</i> because it makes them feel empowered in the face of something they don’t understand and consequently fear.<br /><br />I’m not, at this point, advocating abandoning the <b>concept</b> of the natural law or natural rights or, as you point out,<br /><i>“…the American proclamation of "natural rights"--a belief in the <b>concept</b> of natural rights---…“</i><br /><br />What I am questioning is whether or not there is a viable, singular and universal understanding of what constitutes the state of nature, man’s place in nature, what constitutes the natural law, what rights are to be derived, etc., etc., - one that appeals to <i>“a decent respect to the opinions of mankind”</i> - sans caveat. <br /><br />Of course, you and Scalia will likely say that it is self evident that the natural law entails the Thomist and Catholic traditions of natural law. I might say, and Einstein and others would agree, that the “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God” leaves open a purely Spinozan understanding of nature and God, unrooted from religious tradition and the folly and intellectual tyrannies of priests and clerics and busy bodies. <br /><br />We’re left with a standoff between an immanent and non-teleological natural understanding of the world that is governed by the creative natural laws of energy and motion vs. one that relies on a teleological nature governed by an intervening transcendent supernatural force. Let’s face it, “Nature’s God” sounds suspiciously absent a supernatural force and “Creator” as nature alone leaves out a necessary agency. But it still leaves room to read in Yahweh. Nothing has been decided. And, the arc of history yadda yadda blah blah blah…….<br /><br />So, you can call me a lefty or a libtard or a far left lefty libtard or a far left lefty libtard loser* or whatever’s in vogue these days but it doesn’t change the fact that <i>“We the people”</i> have not been obliged by the founders and framers to follow the natural law in any particular sense, but to use our reason, with or without divine revelation, to strive toward understanding ourselves and our place in nature and how we will govern ouselves.<br /><br />So, overall, I think that in principle, we can agree on a conceptual framework of the idea of the natural law to work out the details of natural rights.<br /><br />continued belowjimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-51470292413969516412013-08-03T22:46:37.211-06:002013-08-03T22:46:37.211-06:00JRB, can you repeat your argument in the form of a...JRB, can you repeat your argument in the form of an argument? <br /><br /><i>What the founders and framers did not do is include a natural law court as a fourth branch of government.</i><br /><br />is complete nonsense. Natural law was the foundation of both legislating and judging. That's 2 out of 3 branches straight off.<br /><br />Blackstone:<br /><br />"<i>Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. </i><br /><br />Not a single Founder of the United States of America diagreed with that "truth." They held it self-evident.<br /><br />Everything you wish to argue that ignores that fact--that unanimity--is, well, crap. <br /><br />So clean it up, Jim, cut the crap. I could make several and many how America does not equal the Book of Deuteronomy. In fact, I just wrote the same thing to our brother of the Founding Truth. ;-}<br /><br />Jim, I'd enjoy demolishing your vague left-wing constructions if it didn't bum me out that you have no idea what the Founding theology was about. And on the other side, our old friend OFT, a right-wing Christian fundamentalist doesn't get it either.<br /><br />http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-much-needed-break.html<br /><br />It's a failure of our education system, a hole in the Public Discussion. You want to abandon "Natural Law?" According to Justice Antonin Scalia, we did--in 1938, <i>ErieRR v. Thompkins</i>.<br /><br />http://web.archive.org/web/20080116061700/http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/aei2-21-06.asp<br /><br />I want to back down too, Jim, but we gotta keep the facts straight. we are so far from the facts of the Founding that I despair. Our educational system has failed us--that's why a David Barton can rise in the first place.<br /><br />When I joined this blog, I had a small idea of how Aquinas and "natural law" led to the American proclamation of "natural rights"--a <i>belief in the concept of natural rights</i>---<br /><br /><i>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, that among these are blahblahblah</i><br /><br />But it's not blahblah, Jim. It's all we have.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54735574260379208012013-08-02T21:28:50.496-06:002013-08-02T21:28:50.496-06:00" The "Godless" Constitution argume...<i>" The "Godless" Constitution argument is too thrifty with the facts."</i><br /><br />Except that it is built exclusively on the facts. I submit the US Constitution as Exhibit A and Kramnick and Moore's <i>The Godless Constitution</i> as exhibit B. <br /><br />Oh I forgot, this is not a courtroom. I'll rephrase. I cite the US Constitution and reference Kramnick and Moore's <i>The Godless Constitution</i> for additional details.<br /><br />What the "Godless" Constitution argument is thrifty on is mystical speculation about ill-defined and controversial philosophical concepts. <br /><br />What the founders and framers did not do is include a natural law court as a fourth branch of government. Or a blasphemy clause. Or a Department of The Inquisition. I don't believe these even came up at the conventions. Well, maybe clergy were miffed.<br /><br />What they did do is give us the idea that we have a right to freedom of expression and no religious tests - unattached to Thomas Aquinas or the so called Calvinist Resistance Theory or faith. It is the plain language without reading in exotic theories. 100% the last nail in the coffin of the Scholastic and Roman Catholic Church tradition of harsh imposition of ridged civic order and the shackling of the minds of men...and, of course, women.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37217469996833187302013-08-02T13:32:09.870-06:002013-08-02T13:32:09.870-06:00At least, in part, on some vague rhetorical notion...<i>At least, in part, on some vague rhetorical notion of the NL and nature and reason. Yet, no guidance in the Constitution. No instructions given by the founders/framers on what the definitive understanding of the NL is or should be.</i><br /><br />Natural rights; the right to have rights. The Constitution presupposes them, and their existence is derived by natural law [indeed, endowed by the Creator].<br /><br />The story does not begin in 1787. The "Godless" Constitution argument is too thrifty with the facts.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78990511623881164662013-08-02T06:44:03.595-06:002013-08-02T06:44:03.595-06:00"Not one in 1000 Americans even knows what &q...<i>"Not one in 1000 Americans even knows what "natural law" means,..."</i><br /><br />Maybe that's not so much due to ignorance alone but to relevance. I have come to understand that the NL is important in the Catholic/Thomist tradition (and apparently Freemason), but outside of that there seems to be some interest in some philosophical legal theory proponents. <br /><br /><i>"... even fewer know this country was founded on it."</i><br /><br />At least, in part, on some vague rhetorical notion of the NL and nature and reason. Yet, no guidance in the Constitution. No instructions given by the founders/framers on what the definitive understanding of the NL is or should be. A strange silence from so many lawyers with so much energy and ink to spend. And no appeal to the Vatican for help. <br /><br />Not much of a foundation.<br /><br />On the other hand, to paraphrase OFT from another pub combox, Calvin was a genius that founded America. <br /><br />Everybody wants a piece.jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46298200354409694772013-08-01T11:42:20.101-06:002013-08-01T11:42:20.101-06:00It is my belief that Freemasonry was founded on th...It is my belief that Freemasonry was founded on the belief in natural law, and it's objective has always been the discovery of natural law as a means of understanding divinity. Without I'm not allowed to go into detail, but our ritual is absolutely thick with references, and yet almost none of us ever talk about it as anything other than a social/philanthropic old boy's club. It's a real shame. I've been researching the monastic roots of Freemasonry, and this article has really helped me on my way. Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-2542963852908603842013-08-01T00:19:29.467-06:002013-08-01T00:19:29.467-06:00jimmiraybob said...
"There's a common per...<i>jimmiraybob said...<br />"There's a common perception today that "reason" was somehow discovered in the West with the Enlightenment."<br /><br />Well, except those that recognize the intellectual contributions of the classical Greeks (starting with the pre-Socratics)and Romans and the debt medieval philosophy and theology owe their intellectual predecessors.</i><br /><br />Glad to hear there are a few of you out there. Anyone who has actually read the medievals knows they acknowledge their "debt" to classical philosophy. Anyone reading the modern bleat must look long and hard for Aristotle and classical philosophy. Not one in 1000 Americans even knows what "natural law" means, even fewer know this country was founded on it.<br /><br />Hence, this post. Enjoy.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-6015369432356113552013-07-31T22:23:15.048-06:002013-07-31T22:23:15.048-06:00"There's a common perception today that &...<i>"There's a common perception today that "reason" was somehow discovered in the West with the Enlightenment."</i><br /><br />Well, except those that recognize the intellectual contributions of the classical Greeks (starting with the pre-Socratics)and Romans and the debt medieval philosophy and theology owe their intellectual predecessors. jimmiraybobnoreply@blogger.com