|
By Chuck Colson|Published Date: August 01, 2011
Clarence Thomas
Chuck’s 1991 commentary on Justice Clarence Thomas reminds us of the importance of realizing that there is a natural law to which we are all subject – and which we must not ignore.
In politics Americans like to fall comfortably in the middle of the road. And so it’s a common tactic of politicians to present their own views as the mainstream, while painting their opponents as extremists – on the fringe.
Call it the weirdo factor. If you can’t undercut someone by rational argument, just make him look weird, out of the mainstream.
We’re seeing that very tactic at work in the debate today over Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
Judge Thomas believes in natural law – that human laws have to be measured against an objective standard of morality and justice. A higher law.
Opponents have labelled this view weird. Harvard professor Lawrence Tribe said no Supreme Court nominee in 50 years has held a natural law philosophy.
That’s a wild exaggeration. In fact, most people hold a form of natural law. How about you? Do you believe the government can pass a law that is unjust? If so, you believe in natural law. You believe a law has to measure up to some outside standard of justice; otherwise it’s unjust.
Natural law has been the dominant legal philosophy throughout Western civilization. Its roots reach back to the ancient Greeks and Romans – to Plato and Aristotle, Cicero and Seneca.
It was the dominant philosophy of law in the Middle Ages. The great theologian Thomas Aquinas related the secular concept of natural law to the Biblical concept of divine law. Both refer to an objective standard against which human laws are to be judged.
The Reformers talked about natural law, too. John Calvin wrote that God’s law is “engraved upon the minds of men” through conscience and natural law.
Our modern nations are based on the writings of men such as John Locke and Montesquieu, who offered their own theories of natural law.
Need we belabor the point any further?
Natural law has a long and venerable heritage in Western thought. It is hardly novel or unusual. And certainly not weird.
In fact, it is the only basis for human rights. Judge Thomas argues that minority rights depend upon the idea of natural law found in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration talks about certain rights as inalienable – which means a just government can’t take them away.
But rights are not inalienable unless they are based on something beyond the government.
As the late Francis Schaeffer so eloquently put it, Where do inalienable rights come from? From the state? Then they are not inalienable. Because what the state gives the state can also take away.
That’s why the Declaration of Independence says inalienable rights are endowed by the Creator. The state doesn’t create these rights; it merely acknowledges them as pre-existing by divine creation.
It’s not only Judge Thomas who believes this. Recently a Jewish rabbi named Haberman wrote that without a higher law – a law above the state – there is no standard of Justice to which we can hold the government accountable. Then there is nothing to prevent it from falling into tyranny and totalitarianism.
Rabbi Haberman knows what he’s talking about: He had to flee Germany for his life when the Nazis came to power.
For Jews, for Blacks, for all of us – the only sure basis of civil rights is natural law. And there’s nothing weird about that – whatever Clarence Thomas’s detractors may say.
Want to learn more about the crisis of ethics in America? Order your copy of the DVD series, Doing the Right Thing, and gather with some friends to study this important 6-part series on why natural law matters.
Related posts:
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]
E P I S O D E 1 0 How Should We Then Live 10#1 FINAL CHOICES I. Authoritarianism the Only Humanistic Social Option One man or an elite giving authoritative arbitrary absolutes. A. Society is sole absolute in absence of other absolutes. B. But society has to be led by an elite: John Kenneth […]
What Ever Happened to the Human Race? Bachmann was a student of the works of Francis Schaeffer like I am and I know she was pro-life because of it. (Observe video clip above and picture of Schaeffer.) I hated to see her go. DES MOINES, Iowa — Last night, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann vowed to […]
E P I S O D E 9 How Should We Then Live 9#1 T h e Age of Personal Peace and Afflunce I. By the Early 1960s People Were Bombarded From Every Side by Modern Man’s Humanistic Thought II. Modern Form of Humanistic Thought Leads to Pessimism Regarding a Meaning for Life and for Fixed […]
E P I S O D E 8 How Should We Then Live 8#1 I saw this film series in 1979 and it had a major impact on me. T h e Age of FRAGMENTATION I. Art As a Vehicle Of Modern Thought A. Impressionism (Monet, Renoir, Pissarro, Sisley, Degas) and Post-Impressionism (Cézanne, Van Gogh, Gauguin, […]
E P I S O D E 7 How Should We Then Live 7#1 I am thrilled to get this film series with you. I saw it first in 1979 and it had such a big impact on me. Today’s episode is where we see modern humanist man act on his belief that we live […]
Dr. Francis Schaeffer – Extra – Interview – Part 2 Francis Schaeffer had a big impact on me in the late 1970′s and I have been enjoying his books and films ever since. Here is great video clip of an interview and below is a fine article about him. Francis Schaeffer 1912-1984 Christian Theologian, Philosopher, […]
E P I S O D E 6 How Should We Then Live 6#1 I am sharing with you a film series that I saw in 1979. In this film Francis Schaeffer asserted that was a shift in Modern Science. A. Change in conviction from earlier modern scientists.B. From an open to a closed natural system: […]
E P I S O D E 5 How Should We Then Live 5-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Francis Schaeffer noted, “Reformation Did Not Bring Perfection. But gradually on basis of biblical teaching there was a unique improvement. A. […]
How Should We Then Live 4-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer makes three key points concerning the Reformation: “1. Erasmian Christian humanism rejected by Farel. 2. Bible gives needed answers not only as to how to be right with […]
How Should We Then Live 3-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer really shows why we have so many problems today with this excellent episode. He noted, “Could have gone either way—with emphasis on real people living in […]
How Should We Then Live 2-1 I was impacted by this film series by Francis Schaeffer back in the 1970′s and I wanted to share it with you. Schaeffer points out that during this time period unfortunately we have the “Church’s deviation from early church’s teaching in regard to authority and the approach to God.” […]
How Should We Then Live 1-1 Today I am starting a series that really had a big impact on my life back in the 1970′s when I first saw it. There are ten parts and today is the first. Francis Schaeffer takes a look at Rome and why it fell. It fell because of inward […]
 Click here to purchase Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcey’s How Now Shall We Live?, dedicated to Francis Schaeffer.
Click here for a list of Francis Schaeffer’s greatest works, from the Colson Center store!
|
The Daily Hatch 