The liberal legal paradox vs God
1. It is the law.
2. It is right because it is the law.
3. It is the law because it is right.
4. If it were wrong, it wouldn't be the law.
5. Go to 1.
This is the only liberal defense of law. It is the only way a liberal can justify any law. It is why liberals have no way of determining what is a good law from a bad one. They can only use their emotions and biases to create laws and then hide behind the pseudo-rationalism that they believe led them to that law, when, in fact, it was their religious beliefs that led them to the law in the first place. As they are anti-religious, they cannot delve into the nature of their laws without getting into a paradox. At least conservatives are honest enough to use moral codes to justify their legal forays. Here is why.
Here is a law: We should not discriminate against X.
Here is another law: We should not secretly keep Jews in our homes.
Why not? Because it is wrong! Why is it wrong?
At this point, a liberal can only go to 1-5 above without entering a paradox.
If a liberal says it is morally wrong, then you can say, "Morality is a religious concept. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"
If a liberal says it is ethically wrong, then you can say, "Ethics is the philosophical study of morals, so it indirectly reflects religion. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"
If a liberal says it is the popular thing to do, then you can say, "Most people decide in their mind about right and wrong based upon the moral codes in their heads. These codes derrive directly from religious upbringing, so in fact, they are religious in nature and reflect the religious view of the majority. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"
If a liberal says it fits with natural law, then you can say, "What we see is colored by our biases and prejudices. We see in nature only that which our preconceptions and tendencies allows us to see. Furthermore, we apply values to what we see based upon our unique, humanistic perspective. To the extent that this perspective is colored by history, psychology and emotionality, it is based upon our world view which, in fact, is the definition of religion. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"
DocBrain thinks that it is the attempt to understand the ideal, the divine, the God-like, the perfect way, that leads us to good. Good can trump law, but not without acknowedging that good exists. We can try to define good in operational terms, such as relieving suffering, conflict and ignorance, but we still are seeking good. When we seek good, we seek something that is not natural, not entirely animalistic, something that transcends common observation. We are seeking that which is transcedental. God is that which is transcedental. Seeking to go with God is what makes a people great. This fact is missed by those who would remove God from the USA. Without that concept, all is a matter of opinion; all that we have comes at the beneficence of government. We have relinquished part of our contract with the government by conceding that our innate rights do not spring from an unimpeachable source. The liberal belief in separating God from government is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
Liberals get into the confused belief that Christianity claims to own God, so they get caught up in championing other religions over Christianity or Godlessness over God, often in a perverse way. While liberals are to be congratulated in their ecumenical attempts, they should tread lightly on the concept of Godlessness or of removing God from the operations of government or from the public discourse. All of civilization is based upon summum bonum, so without ideals, it will fall apart as a house of cards.
2. It is right because it is the law.
3. It is the law because it is right.
4. If it were wrong, it wouldn't be the law.
5. Go to 1.
This is the only liberal defense of law. It is the only way a liberal can justify any law. It is why liberals have no way of determining what is a good law from a bad one. They can only use their emotions and biases to create laws and then hide behind the pseudo-rationalism that they believe led them to that law, when, in fact, it was their religious beliefs that led them to the law in the first place. As they are anti-religious, they cannot delve into the nature of their laws without getting into a paradox. At least conservatives are honest enough to use moral codes to justify their legal forays. Here is why.
Here is a law: We should not discriminate against X.
Here is another law: We should not secretly keep Jews in our homes.
Why not? Because it is wrong! Why is it wrong?
At this point, a liberal can only go to 1-5 above without entering a paradox.
If a liberal says it is morally wrong, then you can say, "Morality is a religious concept. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"
If a liberal says it is ethically wrong, then you can say, "Ethics is the philosophical study of morals, so it indirectly reflects religion. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"
If a liberal says it is the popular thing to do, then you can say, "Most people decide in their mind about right and wrong based upon the moral codes in their heads. These codes derrive directly from religious upbringing, so in fact, they are religious in nature and reflect the religious view of the majority. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"
If a liberal says it fits with natural law, then you can say, "What we see is colored by our biases and prejudices. We see in nature only that which our preconceptions and tendencies allows us to see. Furthermore, we apply values to what we see based upon our unique, humanistic perspective. To the extent that this perspective is colored by history, psychology and emotionality, it is based upon our world view which, in fact, is the definition of religion. Shouldn't we separate religion from the state?"
DocBrain thinks that it is the attempt to understand the ideal, the divine, the God-like, the perfect way, that leads us to good. Good can trump law, but not without acknowedging that good exists. We can try to define good in operational terms, such as relieving suffering, conflict and ignorance, but we still are seeking good. When we seek good, we seek something that is not natural, not entirely animalistic, something that transcends common observation. We are seeking that which is transcedental. God is that which is transcedental. Seeking to go with God is what makes a people great. This fact is missed by those who would remove God from the USA. Without that concept, all is a matter of opinion; all that we have comes at the beneficence of government. We have relinquished part of our contract with the government by conceding that our innate rights do not spring from an unimpeachable source. The liberal belief in separating God from government is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
Liberals get into the confused belief that Christianity claims to own God, so they get caught up in championing other religions over Christianity or Godlessness over God, often in a perverse way. While liberals are to be congratulated in their ecumenical attempts, they should tread lightly on the concept of Godlessness or of removing God from the operations of government or from the public discourse. All of civilization is based upon summum bonum, so without ideals, it will fall apart as a house of cards.
posted by DocBrain at
6:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home