Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

        When one asks the question "Natural law -- does it exist?" in
        the context of the above, one is really not asking about
        existence but rather applicability to the proceedings of a
        court of law.

        I am no lawyer, but I understand that judicial decisions are
        generally supposed to be based upon premise that are
        generally accepted and can be examined.  Certainly this
        applies to the constitution and other written law, as well as
        the record of previous cases.

        The problem I have when a judge -- especially a supreme court
        justice, whose decisions cannot be reviewed -- invokes
        natural law is that there is no agreed-upon definitive source
        we can all examine for natural law.  A decision based upon
        natural law is tantamount to a decision based upon a judge's
        notions of what "ought to be" -- it is a way of introducing
        opinion that is not in any normal sense "law" and dressing it
        up in a garb of "supreme law."

        Bob

Bob,

It doesn't take a belief in "natural law" to do this.  Liberal
judges on the Supreme Court have done this very often in the past
30 years (take the Roe v. Wade decision, for example, where the
court ruled that States had *NO* right to legislate the protection
of unborn children during the first trimester and effectively no
right to do so during the entire pregnancy.  Where was this in
the Constitution, I ask???)

Since I also believe in "natural law" (although under the name
of "God's Law") as I think any follower of Jesus would tend to,
I personally don't have much problem with this position.  I do
agree with you, Bob, that this "loophole" certainly allows for
unsupported decisions that can be very troubling.  However, the
alternative of denying God's Law is even more troubling, in
my opinion.

re Note 289.2 by OVER::JACKSON:

> It doesn't take a belief in "natural law" to do this.  Liberal
> judges on the Supreme Court have done this very often in the past
> 30 years (take the Roe v. Wade decision, for example, where the
> court ruled that States had *NO* right to legislate the protection
> of unborn children during the first trimester and effectively no
> right to do so during the entire pregnancy.  Where was this in
> the Constitution, I ask???)

        You may be confusing the decision with the basis in law. 
        Certainly, Roe v. Wade is not in the constitution literally. 
        Few supreme court decisions are literally in the
        constitution.  The decision was reached using various bases
        in law, all of which at least were claimed to be in the
        constitution or precedent.

        I would much rather have this state of affairs than have a
        justice invoke a basis that she or he acknowledged was not in
        the constitution or in judicial precedent, but rather simply
        her or his opinion of something about which there is no
        general agreement.


> However, the
> alternative of denying God's Law is even more troubling, in
> my opinion.

        So how would we determine what this "God's law" is?  How
        would the contesting parties know what would and would not be
        acceptable as a definition of "God's law"?

        Bob

Re:  289.3

Bob,

  >You may be confusing the decision with the basis in law. 
  >Certainly, Roe v. Wade is not in the constitution literally. 
  >Few supreme court decisions are literally in the
  >constitution.  The decision was reached using various bases
  >in law, all of which at least were claimed to be in the
  >constitution or precedent.

No, Bob, the basis for Roe v. Wade is NOT in the Constituion OR
in precedent.  No court had previously struck down the state's right
to protect unborn children.

It is an extension of an assumed "right to privacy" which is NOT explicitly
in the Constitution, but only inferred under Amendment 9 (which says that
there may be other unenumerated rights which should not be abridged) - an
amendment, by the way, which leads to the exact same objections which may
be posed about natural law.  If the objections are valid, then we should
not only do away with "natural law", but should also repeal amendment 9. 

  >So how would we determine what this "God's law" is?

How should we determine what "right" ever is?  This is a very serious
question (not just meant to turn the question around to you).  The
law we have now is BASED on natural law.  Should we now eradicate the
foundation because we like the tower???

Collis

re Note 289.4 by OVER::JACKSON:

> If the objections are valid, then we should
> not only do away with "natural law", but should also repeal amendment 9. 
  
        Nobody is proposing doing away with "natural law" as part of
        the US judicial process -- the question is whether we should
        allow a candidate supreme court justice to introduce his
        personal notions of "natural law" in a way which he admits
        would be superior to the constitution and judicial precedent.

        Bob

Re:  289.5
  
  >Nobody is proposing doing away with "natural law" as part of
  >the US judicial process...

I think there are those that will propose exactly this that will
be heard from.

  >...-- the question is whether we should allow a candidate supreme 
  >court justice to introduce his personal notions of "natural law" 

By "personal notions" do you mean reasoned opinion?  If so, why is
this man's reasoned opinion about "natural law" any better or worse
than yours or mine?  Is not our entire law system based on reasoned
opinion upon reasoned opinion upon reasoned opinion (which opinions
are often, in fact, based upon natural law)?

Indeed, this is the problem when people are setup to judge other people.
However, as long as we need judges (and we do need them), we will
constantly be faced with this problem.  We are dependent upon their
abilities, judgment and reason.  If you are proposing that personal,
reasoned opinion be outlawed from the Supreme Court, we will have to
do away with the court entirely.  If, however, you are simply saying
that this man's (personal) reasoned opinions are inferior or incorrect
for some demonstrable reason, then feel free to present the reasons
why.

  >...in a way which he admits would be superior to the constitution and 
  >judicial precedent.

If indeed the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are based on
natural law (which I have claimed and you have not disagreed with - and
which the Declaration of Independence explicitly acknowledges), then
returning to the basis of law is hardly something which we should
contest but rather one which we should support.

Collis

re Note 289.6 by OVER::JACKSON:

> Is not our entire law system based on ... natural law?

        No.

        Bob

        P.S.  By "no" I mean that you cannot find citations and
        cross-references to a body of "natural law" in the opinions
        of any of our courts or in the records of any of our
        legislative bodies.  Of course you can find hand-waving
        appeals to a vague notion of "natural law" in an attempt to
        raise opinion above the written and case law.

re Note 289.6 by OVER::JACKSON:

> If you are proposing that personal,
> reasoned opinion be outlawed from the Supreme Court, we will have to
> do away with the court entirely.  

        No, I am merely proposing that they should be labeled as
        such, and not as "natural law."


> If, however, you are simply saying
> that this man's (personal) reasoned opinions are inferior or incorrect
> for some demonstrable reason, then feel free to present the reasons
> why.

        It's not his opinions that are called into question by his
        appeal to "natural law", but his intellectual honesty and his
        intestinal fortitude.  He apparently feels that if he plainly
        presents his reasoned opinion, that that is not sufficient;
        and that he must appeal instead to an authority which we can
        neither question nor examine.

        Bob

Re:  289.8

     >>If you are proposing that personal, reasoned opinion be outlawed 
     >>from the Supreme Court, we will have to do away with the court 
     >>entirely.  

  >No, I am merely proposing that they should be labeled as such, and 
  >not as "natural law."

As I understand it, people who believe in natural law can truthfully
label their views as reasoned opinions as well as those who do not
believe in natural law even when their views are derived from
"natural law".

  >It's not his opinions that are called into question by his
  >appeal to "natural law", but his intellectual honesty and his
  >intestinal fortitude.  

Perhaps you can explain in more detail how it is intellectually dishonest
to acknowledge that God has established laws.

Perhaps you can also explain in more detail how Intestinal fortitude 
is lacking for wishing to submit to these laws.

Perhaps you wish to retract your last sentence.

  >He apparently feels that if he plainly
  >presents his reasoned opinion, that that is not sufficient;
  >and that he must appeal instead to an authority which we can
  >neither question nor examine.

I am totally confused as to why you think that an acceptance of
the existence (:-) ) of natural law seems to preclude having a
reasoned opinion based on natural law.

Secondly, you can certainly question God (many people do), although
perhaps not to your satisfaction. :-)  However, God has plainly
revealed Himself to us (Romans 1) and has given us His Word (references
too numerous to cite in this limited disk space) and if a judge
on the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge or accept this, then
we will indeed pay the consequences of our disobedience as a
nation (as we indeed are doing today).

Bob - hypothetically speaking if you wish - if indeed God does exist 
and has established a natural law, how do you propose that judges 
should use this law and still be considered acceptable judges by
you or someone else?  Or should judges NOT use this?

Collis

Re:  289.7

     >> Is not our entire law system based on ... natural law?

  >No.

Can you define what it is based on then?  Note that I will argue
that what you claim our laws are based on are themselves ultimately
based on "natural law".  Feel free to attempt to show this wrong up 
front.

  >Of course you can find hand-waving appeals to a vague notion of 
  >"natural law" in an attempt to raise opinion above the written and 
  >case law.

Case in point.  What is the "written and case law" based on?

Collis

re Note 289.9 by OVER::JACKSON:

> Perhaps you can explain in more detail how it is intellectually dishonest
> to acknowledge that God has established laws.

        What is intellectually dishonest is to claim that your
        opinion about something you personally regard as "natural law"
        -- but for which there is no recognized source that all
        parties can examine -- can have the force of law in a
        judicial proceeding in a secular court.   

        Thomas doesn't appear to be saying simply that his opinions
        will be formed by a sense of some "natural law", but that he
        will regard such opinions as having higher authority than
        precedent, statute law, or the constitution itself.


> Perhaps you can also explain in more detail how Intestinal fortitude 
> is lacking for wishing to submit to these laws.

        But that is not the issue.  If I were to claim that you must
        accept my reasoned opinion because it is based on natural
        law, rather than on merits that you (and others) can examine,
        then I am using an rhetorical crutch.


> I am totally confused as to why you think that an acceptance of
> the existence (:-) ) of natural law seems to preclude having a
> reasoned opinion based on natural law.

        Collis, the issue isn't whether Thomas is entitled to have a
        "reasoned opinion based on natural law", but whether that
        opinion should have any added weight or credibility in a
        secular court beyond the argument itself, i.e., does the
        claim "this is natural law" give an argument added weight in
        reaching a decision?


> Secondly, you can certainly question God (many people do), although
> perhaps not to your satisfaction. :-)  However, God has plainly
> revealed Himself to us (Romans 1) and has given us His Word (references
> too numerous to cite in this limited disk space) and if a judge
> on the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge or accept this, then
> we will indeed pay the consequences of our disobedience as a
> nation (as we indeed are doing today).

        I don't think that you understand what a Catholic (which
        Thomas is) means by "natural law".  It does not mean the
        revelation of Scripture.  It means something more along the
        lines of logical analysis of things, i.e., the result of
        human reason and observation.  Much of Roman Catholic
        theological development is based upon natural law considered
        in addition to Scripture and Tradition.  It sounds very
        objective, but it is really anything but.

        (A dictionary definition of "natural law" is "a principle or
        body of laws as derived from nature, right reason, or
        religion and as ethically binding in human society.")

        It is not simply Scripture, and even if it were, I wouldn't
        advocate (obviously you might differ on this) that the
        Supreme Court use Scripture as a basis for its decisions.


> Bob - hypothetically speaking if you wish - if indeed God does exist 
> and has established a natural law, how do you propose that judges 
> should use this law and still be considered acceptable judges by
> you or someone else?  Or should judges NOT use this?

        Not at all hypothetically speaking:  how would you propose we
        determine, in a form we can examine and agree upon, what this
        natural law is?  If we can't, should it be used as a basis
        for judicial decisions?

        Bob

Re:  289.11

  >What is intellectually dishonest is to claim that your opinion about
  >something you personally regard as "natural law" -- but for which there is
  >no recognized source that all parties can examine -- can have the force of
  >law in a judicial proceeding in a secular court. 

I think the term "intellectually dishonest" is misapplied here if this
is what you mean.  You also seem to be implying that simply because
something is "natural law" means that there is no reasoned basis for
it (or that it can not be argued to be true).  I strongly disagree 
with this assumption.  Natural law can and is argued very successfully
to be true and right.  The Scriptures, for example, are full of such
argumentation that God's Law is indeed correct and true.

  >Thomas doesn't appear to be saying simply that his opinions
  >will be formed by a sense of some "natural law", but that he
  >will regard such opinions as having higher authority than
  >precedent, statute law, or the constitution itself.

Again, the Declaration of Independence explicitly acknowledges that
our rights are NOT based on our self-imposed claims, but rather upon
God and that we are subject to what God has given us.  Continuing
to acknowledge a higher authority and refer back to it is only
sensible given this history.  

     >> Perhaps you can also explain in more detail how Intestinal fortitude 
     >> is lacking for wishing to submit to these laws.

  >But that is not the issue.  If I were to claim that you must
  >accept my reasoned opinion because it is based on natural
  >law, rather than on merits that you (and others) can examine,
  >then I am using an rhetorical crutch.

I agree that intestinal fortitude is not and never was the issue.  I
also continue to take exception to your implied claim that natural 
laws do not have merits that can be examined.  Even if they did not
(and they do), we should still submit to them.

  >I don't think that you understand what a Catholic (which Thomas is) 
  >means by "natural law".  It does not mean the revelation of Scripture.  

I fully accept that God reveals Himself and His Will in many ways and
not simply Scripture.  Conscience is a prime example of this.  I
certainly would not want to limit Thomas or anyone to the revelation
of Scripture.

  >It sounds very objective, but it is really anything but.

I want God to be "objective".  Unfortunately, this is not always the
case.

     >> Bob - hypothetically speaking if you wish - if indeed God does exist 
     >> and has established a natural law, how do you propose that judges 
     >> should use this law and still be considered acceptable judges by
     >> you or someone else?  Or should judges NOT use this?

  >Not at all hypothetically speaking:  how would you propose we
  >determine, in a form we can examine and agree upon, what this
  >natural law is?  If we can't, should it be used as a basis
  >for judicial decisions?

Let's take the questions one at a time.  The question I asked rightly
should be answered first since your question is only relevant if an 
appropriate answer is given to the my question.  So I ask you again.
If indeed God does exist and has established a natural law, how do you
propose that judges should use this law and still be considered
acceptable judges by you or someone else?  Or should judges NOT use
this? 

Collis

re Note 289.12 by OVER::JACKSON:

> Let's take the questions one at a time.  The question I asked rightly
> should be answered first since your question is only relevant if an 
> appropriate answer is given to the my question.  So I ask you again.
> If indeed God does exist and has established a natural law, how do you
> propose that judges should use this law and still be considered
> acceptable judges by you or someone else?  Or should judges NOT use
> this? 
  
        I propose that any judge who wishes to use natural law cite
        section, paragraph, and line from the source document, and
        let the authority of that citation stand on the accepted
        authority of that source document.

        If the judge cannot make such a citation, or if such a
        citation would be from a source that the body politic does
        not accept as authoritative in such matters, then it has
        merely the weight of human opinion, whether one believes that
        "natural law" in the abstract exists or not.

        Bob

Re: .1  Bob F.

>        When one asks the question "Natural law -- does it exist?" in
>        the context of the above, one is really not asking about
>        existence but rather applicability to the proceedings of a
>        court of law.

Well, actually I do question the existence of natural law, but you're right
that a more relevant question is whether natural law should be given the
same weight as the Constitution and secular laws in the courtroom.

Re: .2  Collis

>Since I also believe in "natural law" (although under the name
>of "God's Law") as I think any follower of Jesus would tend to,
>I personally don't have much problem with this position.  I do
>agree with you, Bob, that this "loophole" certainly allows for
>unsupported decisions that can be very troubling.  However, the
>alternative of denying God's Law is even more troubling, in
>my opinion.

Are you saying that God's Law (presumably as recorded in the Bible) should
be the basis for U.S. Supreme Court decisions?  Wouldn't this amount to the
establishment of a national religion?  What if a Moslem is appointed to the
Court - should he/she also be guided by natural law, even though his/her
natural law would be different from yours?

>It doesn't take a belief in "natural law" to do this.  Liberal
>judges on the Supreme Court have done this very often in the past
>30 years (take the Roe v. Wade decision, for example, where the
>court ruled that States had *NO* right to legislate the protection
>of unborn children during the first trimester and effectively no
>right to do so during the entire pregnancy.  Where was this in
>the Constitution, I ask???)

I have to admit that I'd be more comfortable if there were a Constitutional
amendment explicitly guaranteeing the right to an abortion.  The justices
who voted with the majority on Roe v. Wade may have struck a blow for
women's rights at the expense of making the Constitution as a whole a less
stable document - a liberal Court would interpret the Constitution to favor
liberal causes while a conservative Court would interpret it to favor
conservative causes.

Maybe it's inevitable that the Court has become politicized.  Unfortunately, it
seems to me that Presidents Reagan and Bush have been making Supreme Court
nominations based on political and ideological considerations (choosing
conservative judges) while the Democratic Senate has been confirming them as if
the nominations were non-political (i.e. as if a liberal needed a better reason
to vote against confirmation than that the candidate was a conservative).

				-- Bob

Re:  289.14

  >Are you saying that God's Law (presumably as recorded in the Bible) 
  >should be the basis for U.S. Supreme Court decisions?

Are you saying that humans should ignore God's Law at our highest
levels (i.e. the Supreme Court)?  I hardly think that this would
be pleasing to my Lord and Savior (to whom I owe everything).

  >Wouldn't this amount to the establishment of a national religion?

Bob, God's Law has been acknowledged and used in the Supreme Court
for years.  (It has also been ignored for years.  The difference is
the justices and the issues they are dealing with.)  I hardly see
that we have a national religion - although we are certainly moving
pretty close to humanism as a state supported belief system.  Somehow
I don't think that God's Law and humanism are particularly compatible.  :-)

  >What if a Moslem is appointed to the Court - should he/she also be 
  >guided by natural law, even though his/her natural law would be 
  >different from yours?

Every person should by guided by natural law, incling a Moslem judge/
justice.

This is not to say that there are not problems with defining and
implementing "natural law".  Just look at out current system of
justice which is to a large extent BASED on natural law.  There are
plenty of problems.  However, ignoring natural law and thereby
assuming that we define for ourselves what is right and wrong is
EXACTLY what will cause the fall of our nation.  It is exactly when
the people get proud enough in their hearts to make themselves (false)
gods and then conduct their matters as if this was true that the 
judgment of God falls.  (Of course, we don't need God to do special
judgment because history shows that societies collapse at this point.)

Collis

Re:  289.13
  
  >I propose that any judge who wishes to use natural law cite section,
  >paragraph, and line from the source document, and let the authority of
  >that citation stand on the accepted authority of that source document.

  >If the judge cannot make such a citation, or if such a citation would
  >be from a source that the body politic does not accept as
  >authoritative in such matters, then it has merely the weight of human
  >opinion, whether one believes that "natural law" in the abstract
  >exists or not.

It is interesting that you should wish "natural law" to be justified
solely from a human basis.  However, I agree with you that it is
problematic to "justify" natural law on any other basis.

By the way, I also find it interesting that you say that it would have
"merely the weight of human opinion".  What is interesting about this
is that all the sources quoted and those doing the reviewing only
have the "weight of human opinion" as well.  Now certainly some
opinion is better substantiated (or more commonly agreed to) then
other.  However, it is still human opinion.

God's Law, however, is not human opinion.  

I am glad to hear that you do not believe natural law should be
ignored, just because it can be difficult to justify.  Indeed, God
as the creator and sustainer of all and as pure, holy and just simply
because of who He is does NOT need any justification for His Laws.
They are true and right simply because He has decreed them.  It is
us humans who struggle because of our rejection of God, because of
our desire to do things by ourselves our own ways and the problems
we have in hearing what God says and has said.  

Nevertheless, let's not throw out truth because it is difficult to
hear or agree upon.

Collis

    Perhaps there is some confusion here about the role of "natural law" or
    "God's law" in policymaking.  Certainly, every individual has the
    right, and perhaps even a duty, to bring to bear their personal values
    in helping to formulate public policy.  I have no problem with priests,
    ministers, or otherwise religious people participating in political
    decisionmaking at all levels of society.

    The reason we have a democracy, however, and not a theocracy, is that
    individuals often disagree among themselves over many of the details of
    religion, and the religious implications of public policy.  Values
    often clash.  Our democratic society is founded on a principle that
    officially and formally recognizes and tolerates this diversity of
    values, on a wide variety of views.  That tolerance for religious
    diversity includes the right of people to even deny that such a thing
    as natural law exists. The question of the existence of a "natural law"
    is a philosophical, religious, and ideological one, one that is no less
    open to the free and open marketplace of ideas than anything else that
    our democracy tolerates.  For those who have a strong attachment to
    democratic principles, there is a natural revulsion to the idea of
    imposing a specific religious doctrine onto the institutional framework
    from which policy is formed.  This objection centers on the phenomenon
    of a specific religious doctrine, subject to debate, moving outside
    the realm of the individual consciences who help to formulate policy,
    and into the realm of the institutional framework.  This is
    theocracy--it is formally and officially endorsing one doctrine about
    religious belief over all others, and making that endorsement part of
    the lawmaking procedure.

    Naturally, the theocratic sensibility objects to the democratic view,
    and would like to see one theological doctrine (namely, its own)
    enshrined into the institutional framework of its society.  Diversity
    of theological opinion is thus not to be tolerated at the institutional
    level. 

    This distinction between the institutional and individual level may be
    subtle.  No one is debating whether or not individuals should bring to
    bear their understanding of "God's law" into public policy.  The
    difference here has to do with the "how" and the "why" of public
    policy.  In order to make a policy decision, the individuals who form a
    democratic society each bring to bear their perspectives on what the
    right policy must be.  Each individual may believe that they are right,
    and that those who disagree with them are wrong.  That is perfectly
    reasonable.  When a democratic polity chooses from among the differing
    views which one to implement as public policy, it has made a decision
    about which one is "right".  But it does this at the level of
    lawmaking, not at the level of the institutions which govern the
    process of lawmaking.  The former is the "what" of law, the latter is
    the "how".  The question of "why" is what distinguishes a democracy
    from a theocracy.

    The "what" is necessary because society must make decisions about its
    laws somehow.  A democracy does so by leaving it up to the individuals
    who make up the society, and leaves the reasons for doing so up to
    those individuals.  A democracy doesn't care, at the institutional
    level, what the reasons are that people have for their views.  It only
    provides a process for implementing those views into law.  The "how" of
    democracy is defined by a rule of law, majority vote, and freedom of
    expression in a marketplace of ideas; it leaves the "why" of specific
    decisions out of it.

    Because democracy just doesn't care about the "whys" of specific
    policies, it is left for *us*, the participants in a democracy, to
    worry about the "whys" instead.  Standing above and outside of those
    specific whys, it only carries with itself the broader why which is a
    justification for the democratic process itself.   Each individual
    "why" over specific issues is left to the individual people, and is not
    defined as part of the lawmaking process.  Individuals who bring
    religion into it are bringing their own understanding of the "why" into
    the conclusions of the "what".  Democracy not only tolerates this, but
    expects it.

    When society fuses the "why" with the "how" of public policymaking into
    a single institutional principle, democracy ceases.  It is replaced by
    a principle that ultimately embraces authoritarianism, and even
    dictatorship.  The former Eastern Bloc nations of Europe carried out
    this merger of the "why" and the "how" in purely ideological terms, but
    to do so in religious terms is also possible.  Those who favor
    democracy prefer to make the distinction between the "how" of democracy
    and the "why" of policy decisions separate; that is the reasoning
    behind the separation of church and state.  Unfortunately, this
    principle is not always understood or supported as fully as I think it
    should be.

    -- Mike

re: Note 289.17 by Mike "Too stapled to note." 

Excellent note, Mike, thank you very much!  
It clarifies a lot of ideas for me.

Thank you,

Jim

re Note 289.15 by OVER::JACKSON:

> Every person should by guided by natural law, incling a Moslem judge/
> justice.

        Again, you keep changing the issue!  The issue isn't whether
        Clarence Thomas, or any person, should be guided by natural
        law.  The issue is whether they, in their official capacity,
        can ignore or even overturn the official bases of our
        judicial law, including the constitution itself, using a
        claim of "natural law." 

        To put it bluntly:  can a supreme court rule that, in spite
        of the first amendment, the Government is not only allowed to
        but must advance a particular religious point of view because
        it is self-evident that God, and hence "natural law", would
        require that correct religion be propagated?

        The first amendment prohibits the government from suppressing
        false religions.  The first amendment prohibits the
        government from promoting true religion.  I suspect that,
        over most of the history of the philosophy of "natural law"
        (the past two millennia), proponents of natural law would say
        that natural law requires the suppression of falsehood and
        promotion of truth.  Should such notions of natural law, EVEN
        IF THEY ARE TRUE, EVEN IF WE AGREE THEY ARE TRUE, be allowed
        to overrule the constitutional protection of free speech?

        Bob

    I'm not going to match the 84 line .17.  I think that it's paranoid to
    think that natural law is a theocracy by stealth.  It's a political
    concept courtesy of people who believed in Zeus who threw thunderbolts
    down to earth.
    
    Understanding "natural law" is simple, and I'm surprised that no more
    has made it sound simple.  The Declaration of Independence expressed
    it: "Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness".  Natural law is used
    all the time by judges to weigh conflicts of rights: a contract that
    would require an employee to have a high risk of dying would be voided
    as "unconscionable", because the right to life is more important.
    The Ancient Greek and Roman philosphers still have influence.  Natural
    law is a guide to the fairness of written law, the law with sanctions.
    It's a tie-breaker.  Not the statement of a government, the Declaration
    of Independence is our nearest guide to natural law.
    
    Bork, a skeptic regarding natural law, was bashed for not believing
    that it granted a privacy right.
    
    Thomas, who writes about natural law, is bashed for believing that is
    exists.
    
    Natural law is a philosophical concept that's been acquired by
    political scientists.
    
    My opinion is that the world is too complex for it now.  Natural law
    tells you that through inaction people should not be allowed to starve,
    but on the other hand, people shouldn't be enslaved to farms by the
    state.  Natural law isn't going to help with the hard choices we face.

re Note 289.20 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     The Ancient Greek and Roman philosphers still have influence.  Natural
>     law is a guide to the fairness of written law, the law with sanctions.
>     It's a tie-breaker.  Not the statement of a government, the Declaration
>     of Independence is our nearest guide to natural law.

        But Pat, as you have described it, "natural law" seems to be
        equivalent to "enlightened common sense"  (where
        "enlightened" means anything I'm in general philosophical
        agreement with :-).

        I have nothing against using common sense, whether an
        individual's own or from the tradition of centuries, in
        helping to judge tricky situations of law.  In fact, I would
        be shocked if common sense were deliberately avoided!

        Of course, I mean the "common sense" that is enlightened in a
        way I would agree with -- the base note, an article about
        Clarence Thomas, quotes a number of old supreme court
        decisions that use "natural law" a.k.a. "common sense" in a
        way that few today would agree with.  I'm sure that there
        were some, perhaps many, invocations of "natural law" that we
        would agree with even today.  But the point is that such
        notions of underlying rightness and wrongness, to the extent
        that they are not embodied in concrete form in documents of
        legal standing, are subject to every whim of philosophical
        and political fashion.  I would not want the constitution,
        statute, and case law to be willfully subject to every whim
        of philosophical and political fashion.

        To the extent that the legally concrete documents of our
        society reflect a notion of "natural law", then natural law
        is represented by those documents.  To say that there is some
        sort of natural law that a jurist can appeal to beyond those
        documents, AS A HIGHER AUTHORITY, is to open the door much
        wider for whims of philosophical and political fashion.

        Bob

        P.S.  The article in the base note refers to some comment by
        Clarence Thomas concerning another article -- I believe
        Thomas is quoted as saying it was an excellent application of
        natural law.  I would find it very helpful to read that
        article -- that might give additional insights into what
        Thomas thinks an application of natural law is all about. 
        Anybody have it?

    I think that "natural law" has a permanence and universality that
    "common sense" lacks.

    "Common sense" is the admonition of attorneys to juries when they hear
    conflicting evidence.  A car is seized with 10 suitcases full of
    cocaine and the defendant says "I didn't know what was in them. I was
    carrying them for a friend... "  Your own life experience tells you
    there's some reasonable doubt here regarding the truth of that
    statement.

    "Natural law" addresses larger issues, such as the right to life,
    liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  A philospher's common sense, if
    you will.

    Unfortunately, even philosophers can disagree among themselves over
    what constitutes "natural law".  Asserting that the right to life,
    liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a "self-evident" truth may make
    for good rhetoric during times of revolution; but, as much as I may
    agree with Thomas Jefferson about the validity of these rights, they
    are every bit as debatable as any other philosophical assertion.
    Philosophers may certainly ask themselves what constitutes a
    "self-evident" truth; for example, as far as Descartes was concerned,
    the only such truth was the fact of his own consciousness.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  289.19

     >> Every person should by guided by natural law, incling a Moslem judge/
     >> justice.

  >Again, you keep changing the issue!  The issue isn't whether
  >Clarence Thomas, or any person, should be guided by natural
  >law.  The issue is whether they, in their official capacity,
  >can ignore or even overturn the official bases of our
  >judicial law, including the constitution itself, using a
  >claim of "natural law."

I'm glad we're in agreement that all people should be guided by
natural law.

This raises the question, then, whether natural law should be
ignored when in an official capacity.  It doesn't make sense to
me that we should all be guided by natural law and then ignore
this in the formal documents we call written law.

But you do raise a very good point (which has been touched on
before):  It is threatening to go back to the very base of the
system since a reinterpretation can jepeordize the whole system
(in this case the body of written law that we have).  Does this
mean that we should ignore natural law?  No.  It simply means that
we need to weigh the arguments about natural law *very* carefully.

  >To put it bluntly:  can a supreme court rule that, in spite
  >of the first amendment, the Government is not only allowed to
  >but must advance a particular religious point of view because
  >it is self-evident that God, and hence "natural law", would
  >require that correct religion be propagated?

No, because the Supreme Court is limited by the Constitution as
to what it may rule.  The Constitution can only be changed by
a lengthy amendment process.  These checks are in place to
prevent a few people from making bizarre decisions that effect
us all.  But again, this does not mean that the Constitution
and it's amendments were not ultimately themselves based on natural
law.

Is this clearer?

Collis

Re: 289.21

  >But the point is that such notions of underlying rightness and 
  >wrongness, to the extent that they are not embodied in concrete form 
  >in documents of legal standing, are subject to every whim of philosophical
  >and political fashion.

I think there is truth in this statement, but I also believe it
overstates the case.

I am certainly not recommending that our legal system be scrapped in
favor of "natural law" or that the body of legal writing that we have 
(which is based on natural law) be scrapped.  No, we should work *with*
this material - but NOT consider it an end-all and a be-all.  There
*is* more to our basic rights and responsibilities than what is written
down in legal documents.  For example, the Bible is not a legal document
and is not generally accepted as legally binding, yet it contains a
wealth of God-breathed information (about natural law?) for us to use.

Again, simply because "natural law" is difficult to define and agree
upon (what isn't!!) does not mean that it should be ignored in legal
decisions.  God has given it to us and let's use it!

Collis

       I am not so sure I believe in the idea of natural law 
      beyond basic cause and effect and various interdependencies.
      Much of what is often called "natural law" is often a case of
      us projecting our beliefs and desires into what we see 
      happening around us.
       Such exalted philosophical ideas as the right to life,
      liberty and the pursuit of happiness are a result of the
      humanistic philosophical leanings of the founders of this 
      country. They certainly have nothing to do with "natural law"
      if you are familiar with nature.
       A right to life only exists in nature if you are faster, smarter,
      or stronger than whatever is trying to eat you. The natural world is
      relentless and unforgiving. Even life at the top of the food chain
      is perilous. 
       Ideas such as rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are
      thoroughly modern in most of the world. How soon we forget that the
      old "natural law" was the divine right of kings and queens. The old
      "natural law" said Black, Brown, Yellow and Red people are inferior 
      to White people and their natural place was as slaves or to be 
      killed off so "superior" people could have their land. In their time
      these ideas were regarded as the natural order of the universe and
      were considered to be unchanging and ordained by God. 
       With the passing of time and with the change of human society we
      have evolved a new set of "natural laws" that reflect new sets
      of beliefs and prejudices. A couple hundred years from now our
      "natural laws" will be looked at with the same disdain with with
      which we look back upon ideas such as the divine right of royalty
      and the belief of racial inferiority.

                                  
                                                              
                                                        Mike


        
       

re Note 289.24 by OVER::JACKSON:

        Collis,

        Your use of the language baffles me!  You quote me as saying
        "The issue isn't whether Clarence Thomas, or any person,
        should be guided by natural law" and you then proceed to
        conclude "I'm glad we're in agreement that all people should
        be guided by natural law."

        I didn't state or imply your conclusion, and I'm not sure I
        can agree to it as a practical matter.   Since I can't look
        up "natural law" and, more importantly, I can't look up
        another person's view of "natural law" in order to determine
        their basis for dealing with me (and society in general), I'm
        pretty much stuck with the conclusion that while "natural
        law" is a interesting concept, I and others have to use
        written law as our common guide in society.


> No, because the Supreme Court is limited by the Constitution as
> to what it may rule.  

        Apparently not if Clarence Thomas, and a majority like him,
        gets on the bench!  He calls "natural law" a HIGHER
        AUTHORITY!  I assume that this means that if he perceives a
        disagreement between his personal view of natural law and
        the Constitution, then he must overrule the Constitution.

        That's the WHOLE point of my problem with his references to
        natural law.

        Bob

Re:  289.27

  >I didn't state or imply your conclusion, and I'm not sure I can agree 
  >to it as a practical matter.

Oh well.  I took a stab at reading into what you said hoping that
it was there (knowing you would respond if it wasn't).

     >> No, because the Supreme Court is limited by the Constitution as
     >> to what it may rule.  

  >Apparently not if Clarence Thomas, and a majority like him,
  >gets on the bench!  He calls "natural law" a HIGHER
  >AUTHORITY!  I assume that this means that if he perceives a
  >disagreement between his personal view of natural law and
  >the Constitution, then he must overrule the Constitution.

  >That's the WHOLE point of my problem with his references to
  >natural law.

*I* believe natural law is a higher authority than any man-made
(or man-written) document and yet *I* do not believe that this
means that a judge should "overrule the Constitution" (i.e. decide
something a particular way which is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution).  Why does Clarence Thomas necessarily believe
what you are claiming?

I fully recognize that we are a society of laws that have a very
good reason for existence (well, many of them do :-) ).  There *is*
a procedure for changing our fundamental beliefs in this area and
it is NOT for a judge to ignore the Constitution.  I have seen
*nothing* in what Clarence Thomas has said which says that he believes
that the Constitution should not be followed as clearly as it can
be understood.  Have you?  If so, please bring it to this discussion
so that we could discuss it intelligently.

Perhaps if this is your primary concern, you can rest easy.

Collis

re Note 289.28 by OVER::JACKSON:

> *I* believe natural law is a higher authority than any man-made
> (or man-written) document and yet *I* do not believe that this
> means that a judge should "overrule the Constitution" (i.e. decide
> something a particular way which is explicitly prohibited by
> the Constitution).  Why does Clarence Thomas necessarily believe
> what you are claiming?
  
        It may not be necessary, but I wouldn't bet my rights on it.

        Bob

��    Here's a bit more technical derivation of the natural law:

                         LEX AETERNA
                            |
            ---------------------------------------
            |                                     |
        morality                          science
    �    law for intelligent creatures      law for the universe
            �|
            |--------------------------------------
            |                                     |
    �    LEX DIVINA                           LEX NATURALIS
            |�                                    |
            |----------------                    |
           � |              |                     |
        LEX VETUS        LEX NOVA            LEX HUMANA
                                                  |
                                ------------------|
                                |                 |
                             JUS GENTIUM       JUS CIVILE

    This is the classical concept of law, that is if you were a law student
    from the 5th to the 19th Centuries.

    LEX AETERNA is the eternal law, God's will for the ordering of the
    universe for all time.

    Morality applies to rational creatures , all with free will.

    LEX DIVINA is the divine law, revealed to men in Scripture.

    LEX NATURALIS is the law that can be discerned by rational creatures
    regardless of specific belief in God (all men are created equal, right
    to life, liberty, etc.)  So the Greeks, the Romans, the Chinese, etc.
    all had embodied natural law in their philosophy.

    LEX VETUS, the Old Testament
    LEX NOVA, the New Testament

    LEX HUMANA is the law that is created by men to order the lives of men.
    It is the Human or Positive Law in Classical terms.  "Western
    Civilization's" Human Law is a synthesis of Greek and Latin cod,
    Jewish and Christian philosophies.
    �
    JUS GENTIUM is the rights or principles for nations.  Today, it's
    called international law.

    JUS CIVILE is the �law for �individuals, the penal codes
  

    "I don't see a role for natural law, or natural rights, in
    constitutional adjudication."
    
    	Clarence Thomas, 9/10/91, at his confirmation hearing

Re: .31 Mike

He's been carefully coached.  The confirmation hearings are theater; Thomas's
record speaks for itself.

				-- Bob

    
    	re .32
    
    	And what does his record say (to you)?
    
    	

	RE: .31, .32 I heard his testimony on that question. He pointed out
	that he said the same thing at his last confermation hearings over
	a year ago. Is there anything in his record that indicates he believes
	otherwise? Things in the last year?

			Alfred

    The The NAACP doesn't want him, NOW doesn't want him the Counsel of
    Churches don't want him. Based on that alone makes him a good choice
    for the Supreme Court. He won't be catering to special interest groups,
    cuz he's shown that he has his own mind.

    Peace
    Jim

Thomas's record clearly shows that he's a conservative.  It's a fair inference
that he would roll back progress liberals have made on civil rights and other
areas.  For that reason I'm opposed to his confirmation.

				-- Bob

Re: .34  Alfred

>	RE: .31, .32 I heard his testimony on that question. He pointed out
>	that he said the same thing at his last confermation hearings over
>	a year ago.

That just shows that he was well coached a year ago too.

				-- Bob

    RE: .37 I'm always suspicious of people who are so quick to call
    someone a liar without evidence. So can I assume you have some?
    And would you like to share it with us.

    I'm not so sure about Thomas but not because I don't believe him
    or agree with him. I just don't know enough about him. Though the
    fact that Kennedy, Metzenbaum, and Biden all don't like him is a
    strong factor in his favor. Those three have solid records of being
    unreliable and anti-constitution. And pro-discrimination.

    			Alfred

    
    RE:36
   Bob,
    
    The progress liberals have made on civil rights is subjective. The
    only ones' claiming that he would roll back civil rights is the NAACP,
    because of his statements questioning  the application of affirmative 
    action in some cases. Whether affirmative action is pro or con to civil 
    rights is subjective to those whom it serves or hurts. 

    Peace
    Jim

Re: .38  Alfred

My evidence is that he wrote one thing and then told the Senate something
different.  What changed his mind?

Re: .39  Jim

I do favor affirmative action - it's needed to counter past discrimination,

Ideally judges should be chosen based on their qualifications, not on their
politics.  (Thomas is far from being the best qualified candidate, by the way,
as evidenced by his ABA rating.)  However, Bush clearly chose Thomas based on
political considerations, so I think Senators should likewise take Thomas's
political orientation into account when deciding whether or not to confirm him.
Thus, for the most part conservatives favor his confirmation and liberals are
opposed to it, both in C-P and in the country as a whole.  The Supreme Court
has become (has always been?) a political arena along with the executive and
legislative branches.

				-- Bob

    re. 35
    
    now Jim,
    
    look again at your logic...he won't be catering perhaps to those
    special interest groups..that's true
    
    but in no way can you infer that Thomas won't be "catering" to
    some special interest groups...i would guess that some of the
    ultra-right groups (such as those that have placed the TV ads
    attacking certain US Senators) might very well be calling on
    Thomas in the future (if he is indeed appointed) to support
    their agendas
    
    peter

    RE:41
    So give us some evidence where Thomas has catered to a right wing
    special interest group in a legal decision. 

    If it's there's a case, then I stand corrected, however the only evidence
    being brought against him so far is from liberals who fear him not
    catering to their interest.

    RE:40
    Bob, 
    	like I said, affirmative action serving civil rights is
    subjective. There are as many arguments to support it as there
    are to oppose it, but because the NAACP supports it  in all cases,
    and Thomas doesn't isn't indicative of him being bad for civil rights.

    Also, his ABA rating means little, after all Judge Bork had a high
    rating, and the liberal's said that ABA ratings weren't  important when
    they rejected him. 

    Jim

>My evidence is that he wrote one thing and then told the Senate something
>different.  What changed his mind?

First, I don't believe he changed his mind. I also do not believe he wrote
that natural law should be used to adjudicate Constitutional issues. He said 
he didn't and Biden did not convince me otherwise. Second, what *since* he
told the Senate that he wouldn't use natural law to decide Constitutional
issues, which was well over a year ago, has he written or done that says
otherwise? Biden didn't show anything while I was watching him.

		Alfred

     It is quite interesting that this topic about "natural law"
   has been, for the most part, a political argument.
     This reinforces the opinion expressed by some here and that I
   share that the concept of natural law is merely a way to cloak
   personal political and philosophical agendas with a veneer of
   authority that they would otherwise lack.
     It is curious that the concept of natural law is discussed, but
   as yet no one seems to be able to say what this law or these laws are.
      Is natural law just so much vaporware or would someone care
   to provide me some examples of it and some supporting arguments
  as to why they believe these specific things to be natural laws ?
      

                                                               Mike

    
    whoa, jim...
    
    look at my reply again, please. i never stated that Mr. Thomas
    was catering to anyone...
    
    i did want to point out that your statements that he would be
    impartial because he wasn't "catering" to the special interest
    groups that you named was not logical. it is quite possible that
    he could "cater" to some other group.
    
    peter

Re: .42 Jim

>    	like I said, affirmative action serving civil rights is
>    subjective. There are as many arguments to support it as there
>    are to oppose it, but because the NAACP supports it  in all cases,
>    and Thomas doesn't isn't indicative of him being bad for civil rights.

Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of affirmative action.  I'm for
it and you're against it, and that's okay.  If you're against affirmative
action and you support the conservative position on several other issues then
by all means you should support Thomas's confirmation, although it might bother
you a little that more qualified judges were passed over so that Bush could
score another political victory.

What I thought was wrong with the Bork confirmation hearings was that the left
didn't come right out and oppose Bork because he was a conservative.  Instead
they had to paint him as a racist etc., i.e. attack him personally instead of
just disagreeing with his judicial philosophy.

>    Also, his ABA rating means little, after all Judge Bork had a high
>    rating, and the liberal's said that ABA ratings weren't  important when
>    they rejected him. 

I'd say that a high ABA rating is important, and judicial philosophy is also
important.  In my view Bork passed the "qualified for the job" test and
failed the "judicial philosophy" test.  Thomas fails both.

Re: .43  Alfred

>>My evidence is that he wrote one thing and then told the Senate something
>>different.  What changed his mind?
>
>First, I don't believe he changed his mind.

So far we agree. :-)

> I also do not believe he wrote
>that natural law should be used to adjudicate Constitutional issues.

Now that's a tricky point, and I think this is where the coaching came in.
Even if Thomas never applies his belief in natural law to constitutional
issues, there are other areas where it can come into play.  For example, one
area where the Supreme Court has been turning back the clock on civil rights is
in interpreting the intent of Congress in passing civil rights laws.  In my
view the Court has been deliberately misinterpreting the laws in order to carry
out a right wing agenda.  Thomas could very well continue this trend by
interpreting civil rights laws in the light of what he considers "natural law".

I doubt that Thomas made a distinction in his earlier writings between applying
natural law to constitutional issues and non-constitutional issues.  That's a
distinction that was created later by his handlers.  Quite a clever ploy, I
might add.

I am confident that Thomas's decisions as a Supreme Court justice will reflect
his conservative philosophy, including his belief in natural law, regardless of
what he tells the Senate.  I hope he doesn't add insult to injury by actually
including the words "natural law" in some of those decisions.

Interesting question: if he writes a decision where he applies natural law to a
constitutional issue, should he be impeached?

				-- Bob

    RE:45
    Peter

    this is what you wrote

    >re. 35

    
>    now Jim,
>    
>   look again at your logic...he won't be catering perhaps to those
>    special interest groups..that's true
    
>    but in no way can you infer that Thomas won't be "catering" to
>    some special interest groups...i would guess that some of the
>    ultra-right groups (such as those that have placed the TV ads
>    attacking certain US Senators) might very well be calling on
>    Thomas in the future (if he is indeed appointed) to support
>    their agendas
    
    Aren't you making the assumption that he would be catering special
    interest here ?  I'm asking you to show me something about him 
    to back your assumption.

    My premise is that he hasn't shown favor to special interest in the
    past, so he probably won't in the future. Being a black, man who isn't 
    dancing to the tunes of the NAACP kind of indicates an independent nature 
    to his way of thinking in my opinion. 

    Peace
    Jim

    jim,
    
    altho' it might not be entirely fair to characterize the groups
    you mentioned...NOW, NAACP, and the National Council of Churches
    as "liberal"...these are the only groups that you mentioned in terms
    of catering.
    
    i am certainly no expert or authority on Thomas and i can't say one
    way or the other as to whether he caters to "conservative" special
    interest groups or not.
    
    however, based on what you wrote..there is no reason to assume that
    he will in the future (based on not catering to liberal groups) not
    be 'catering' to "conservative" special interest groups...
    
    do you see what i mean?  just because he doesn't respond to liberal
    groups is not sufficient evidence to conclude that he will be
    impartial. is there a conservative special interest group that he
    is equally non-responsive to? is the Roman Church upset with him
    in the same way that they are with Mario Cuomo?
    
    i also understand that this does not mean that he will cater to 
    conservative special interests..or that he won't be impartial.
    
    frankly, i'm betwixt and between about this nomination. i very much
    would like to see more minority members on the Court (including women)
    but there are a number of things that bother me about Thomas...not
    the least is business about an appeal to "natural law"
    
    i would also feel a whole lot better if Thomas had distanced himself
    from the group that in their zeal to support him found it necessary
    to throw mud on others. 
    
     
    peter
    
    

Re:  .46

Bob,

It sounds like your mind is made up about Thomas and that you will
ascribe any motives necessary to him to maintain your belief about
what he thinks.

Personally, I find no evidence that he deliberately lies and/or
misrepresents himself in the approximately 6 hours of the hearings I
have watched so far.  He has clearly repudiated much of what you
say he believes.

I choose to give someone (whether conservative or liberal) the benefit
of the doubt that they are telling the truth.

Collis

Interestingly (and quite unexpectedly from what I had read in the
papers), Thomas has quite clearly said that he has *never* proposed
that natural law be used for Constitutional adjudication.  This is
different than believing that natural law exists (which he does).

Since there is no evidence that he has ever used natural law as a
justification for a case *as a judge* and clearly has stated that
he believes that it is the Constitution which should be used to
adjudicate cases, I find his opinions on natural law (which I fully
agree with, by the way) to be rather irrelevant.

If we can believe Thomas, would you agree?

Collis

Re: .50 Collis

>He has clearly repudiated much of what you say he believes.

I'm not the only one who is skeptical about Thomas's "confirmation conversion".

Re: .51 Collis

>Interestingly (and quite unexpectedly from what I had read in the
>papers), Thomas has quite clearly said that he has *never* proposed
>that natural law be used for Constitutional adjudication.

Notice the adjective "Constitutional".  There are important cases that don't
involve interpreting the Constitution.

>Since there is no evidence that he has ever used natural law as a
>justification for a case *as a judge* and clearly has stated that
>he believes that it is the Constitution which should be used to
>adjudicate cases, I find his opinions on natural law (which I fully
>agree with, by the way) to be rather irrelevant.

As a judge in a lower court Thomas was not expected to be guided by his
personal opinions, such as his belief in natural law, in deciding cases;
instead he was expected to apply precedents set by other courts, and ultimately
by the Supreme Court.  As an associate justice on the Supreme Court Thomas's
decsion will no longer be subject to review by a higher court, and he will be
free to write decisions that create new precedents.  For that reason I am
interested in all the factors that will influence Thomas's decions.  Even if he
does not explicitly appeal to natural law in making a decision I believe that
his belief in natural law and his conservative philosophy in general will
influence his decisions.  His belief in natural law is relevant because it
illustrates his philosophy of life.

				-- Bob

Re:  289.52

  >Even if he does not explicitly appeal to natural law in making a 
  >decision I believe that his belief in natural law and his conservative 
  >philosophy in general will influence his decisions.  His belief in 
  >natural law is relevant because it illustrates his philosophy of life.

Agreed, natural law is still relevant in this sense.

Collis

    My earlier notes on natural law are a good place to look for a
    definition.
    
    The Declaration of Independence is an appeal to Natual Law "all men are
    created equal".  As British citizens, the signers had no other law to
    appeal to.
    
    Civil law enforced the property rights of a slaveholder, natural law
    opposes slavery, but lacked any power to "adjudicate".  Such power came
    in the form of the 14th Amendment, ie legislative.
    
    The concept that even a bankrupt person should be allowed to keep food,
    clothing, and shelter in the satisfaction of their debts is a natural
    law concept.
    
    Thomas' point my have been made this way "where the federal code and
    court precedents have spoken, it's a legislative taks to correct it,
    not the courts".

    Pat:
         Actually, for centuries "natural law" supported slavery until
        natural law changed. Natural law supported the divine right
        of kings until natural law changed. 
         I noticed that I still have no takers on examples and supporting
        arguments for natural law. Surely some of you advocates of natural
        law are could do this, unless of course my suspicion that it
        is vaporware is correct.

                                                               Mike 

    Natural law has never been used to defend slavery.
    
    Enslavement of the entire population of the Spanish New World was
    averted by the Roman Catholic missionaries who influenced King
    Ferdinand II.  The missionaries argued that the native Americans be
    accorded the dignity of men. Therefore, the native Americans were
    reduced to living as poor peasants in Europe were at the time.
    
    Unfortunately, the same missionaries didn't share the same sentiments
    for the Africans and so they were enslaved.
    
    I believe that the fact the missionaries observed a developed but
    recently destroyed civilization made the think that way regarding the
    Mexicans.  Too late was the discovery made that same intelligence was
    always in the African and the European was too stupid to know.
    Africans were not human in European eyes.
    
    Of course, in the United States commercial concern over the cotton crop
    was the reason for the increase in the slave population, and by the
    early 1800's the education of blacks and articulate spokesmen both
    black and white began to show that the civil law was at odds with the
    natural law.

    
Re.56
    
    
Pat:

     The Bible does not speak out against slavery. Paul didn't seem
    to have any trouble with it. I don't recall Jesus having much
    to say against it either.  The world view presented in the Bible
    seems to me to accept slavery as being a normal situation.
     Paul as a matter of fact was pretty clear that people should
    obey their governments. One could conclude that a Christian
    should not question the morality of slavery if a legally 
    constituted government says it is an acceptable practice.
     Let me ask you this question, how do you know that slavery
    is against natural law ? While I find it moral and philosophically
    repugnant I would be at a loss to explain why it violates natural
    law. 
     Perhaps this is a good example for us to use to explore this concept
    of natural law as it is not a political hot button like abortion or
    birth control.


                                                          Mike

    Well, while I was home sick yesterday, I watched the confirmation
    hearings, and it is real difficult to get a handle on what Judge
    Thomas is about. He's good at answering questions with ambiguous
    answers which is probably how he was coached to answer. Some of the 
    questionnaires like Sen. Kennedy would read a quote from one of Judge 
    Thomas's speeches, and then seemed to twist it out of context to mean 
    something different than what was actually said. Judge Thomas would merely 
    state the context in which he had made the speech, but I had a hard time 
    getting a handle on the context.


    BTW, Peter, last Thursday on my way home, I thought about what you said
    in reference to my assertion that he wouldn't cater to  special
    interest, because he didn't cater to some liberal groups. It finally sunk
    in, I stand corrected ! There is no guarantee he will not cater to
    conservative groups by his non-catering to liberal groups. 
    This is probably why I'm so skeptical about  politics, liberal or 
    conservative anyway.

    My apologies!

    Peace
    Jim

    jim,
    
    i'v been thinking about our exchange as well..and i've tried to
    watch a bit of the hearing and, as you did, i found them largely
    sleep inducing...
    
    however, as someone who often works from an intuitive perspective,
    i get the "feel" that Thomas is the kind of person that i could
    support. certainly, i still have a number of reservations but i
    think he is reasonable and capable of listening.
    
    peter

    "This portrait of men in power is not pretty.  Capitol Hill is not just a
    place where you can bounce checks with impunity and discriminate without
    fear of the law.  It's a place where men can listen to Thomas's
    straight-faced claim that he had no opinion on abortion and then
    question Hill's credibility."
    					-- Ellen Goodman
    					   (from her column, posted in 328.16)