In a court of law the legal counsel will present a case often based on precedent. This means that the attorney will consult prior cases where the same or similar facts of the case were dealt with and ruled upon. The attorney will present that prior ruling, or a collection of prior rulings, as a justification for the plea he is making before the court. Similarly the opposing counsel will seek to find prior rulings to support his position in the matter.
At the Supreme Court level this presentation of established precedent is also the common method used to win a case. However, something has changed in the worldview of this culture that does not presume the past ruling to be justification for a present matter. It simply does not matter to the Court if the Justices of old ruled a certain way and interpreted the Constitution a certain way. What matters is how they see the matter today and what they decide today is an appropriate ruling. The wealth of history is often sacrificed to modern ideology.
I began to consider this situation. On one hand the abandonment of the authority of history seems like a dangerous thing. It is like building a house on sand with no sturdy underpinnings leaving the power of the justices to be a matter of political position. However, on the other hand, if the past were blindly accepted as always accurate authority then errors of the past would continually be perpetuated to future generations with no hope of course correction.
Thus it would seem that precedent alone should not be sufficient justification for the Justices to decide a matter. Just the same, their own opinions are not satisfactory to making such important decisions that affect a nation.
How then should they rule? On what basis should their rulings be made? If historical precedent has no ultimate authority, then on what authority is their authority based upon? If none, why should their authority matter?
If there is no final authority, no place for the buck to stop, how can any court of justice actually do justice?
There was a day when it was commonly acknowledged that the final authority was God and that any justice we employ in this nation ought to be aligned with the Justice of heaven or else the ruling was not worth the paper it was written upon.
This is why this nation has a National Day of Prayer. It is a day of commemorating the subservient position of our nation to our God. Of course, this ought to be lived out all year through, but it is still good to have a day set aside where we remember our national identity in light of His Sovereign Identity.
It is precisely because of our subservience to God that we enjoy the freedom and equal value of life that we do in this nation. This is why this Day is so very important to
19 comments:
karla said: The wealth of history is often sacrificed to modern ideology.
The past can be a useful *guide* about somethings but we must not be constrained by how people viewed things in ages past. The world has changed a great deal even in the past 100 years. You can't expect that ideas have eternal relevance. Things change and that must be taken into account.
karla said: On one hand the abandonment of the authority of history seems like a dangerous thing.
What authority? Unless the details of events in the past are exact or at least close to the details of the presebt case how can you use them for guidence? For example you wouldn't use an instruction manual from the 1950's to fix a radio made yesterday would you?
karla said: If there is no final authority, no place for the buck to stop, how can any court of justice actually do justice?
But there *is* a final authority. Over here it's the European Court.
karla said: This is why this nation has a National Day of Prayer. It is a day of commemorating the subservient position of our nation to our God.
What a *very* strange idea...... Presumably by 'our' God you mean 'your' God?
karla said: It is precisely because of our subservience to God that we enjoy the freedom and equal value of life that we do in this nation.
I thought it was because your country has a codified set of laws protecting such things...? As do many countries......
karla said: let us exercise our freedom to pray for our country to the only One who can restore our heritage and renew our nation.
So, you don't think that as people got the country into the mess its in, that people can't get it out of the same mess?
Cyber “The past can be a useful *guide* about somethings but we must not be constrained by how people viewed things in ages past.”
Agreed.
Cyber “The world has changed a great deal even in the past 100 years. You can't expect that ideas have eternal relevance. Things change and that must be taken into account.”
I accept that not all things are universally relevant, but some things are eternal.
Cyber “What authority? Unless the details of events in the past are exact or at least close to the details of the presebt case how can you use them for guidence? For example you wouldn't use an instruction manual from the 1950's to fix a radio made yesterday would you?”
I was musing about whether or not history ought to have authority. We know history repeats itself and there is a lot that can be learned by studying the past so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. But there are also things in history that were not a great example of how things should be done and so we need truth to be our guide rather than history.
Cyber “But there *is* a final authority. Over here it's the European Court.”
If that’s the case, how does it have final authority? Who gives it final authority? (I was speaking of an authority that our courts should be designed to reflect, not be in and of themselves)
Cyber “What a *very* strange idea...... Presumably by 'our' God you mean 'your' God?”
I mean the God who is there. BTW, the idea is written into all of our (American) founding documents.
Cyber “I thought it was because your country has a codified set of laws protecting such things...? As do many countries......”
We set up those laws to be consistent with a higher law and they are designed to be revised when found to be unjust or inconsistent with God’s truth. American laws are not the ultimate ruling factor, at least they were not intended to be thus, but may have fallen to that position in today’s culture.
Cyber “So, you don't think that as people got the country into the mess its in, that people can't get it out of the same mess? “
I think that people by turning to God and His ways can right the course of this nation (same with any nation).
The God written of in any of our U.S. founding documents is pretty vague and not specifically of the Christian variety. Jefferson was about as far from a modern evangelical Christian as you could get and still have belief in a higher power of any kind.
Jefferson wasn't the only Founding Father.
Karla: "I accept that not all things are universally relevant, but some things are eternal."
Now if you could only offer some evidence for that assertion.
You say that "God" is things like "eternal" and "unchanging", but you've yet to illustrate, in any meaningful way, in what ways "God" doesn't change, whereas man does.
continues...."I was musing about whether or not history ought to have authority."
If you mean absolute "authority", then no, because we cannot know "history" absolutely. We can only know what probably did/probably didn't happen, based on "history".
continues..."there are also things in history that were not a great example of how things should be done..."
What are you basing "should be" on? If it's biblegod and your bible, then you have a huge problem, since proponents of said "God" and said "book" have not ever agreed on "how things should be done", yet, interestingly, they all claim to be guided by the same "Holy Spirit" for their respective interpretations.
IOW, you are in the same subjective boat that you insist nonbelievers are "stuck" in. Karla, PEOPLE decide "how things should be done".
continues..."..and so we need truth to be our guide rather than history."
Yes, "truth". 'Got any? Until then, see above.
Karla: "I mean the God who is there."
Where?
continues..."BTW, the idea is written into all of our (American) founding documents."
Does it mention "Jesus" or "Yahweh" anywhere in said "documents"? If not, then at best, you have evidence for Deistic ideas/principles. Notwithstanding, there is a separation of Church and State clause for a reason.
Moreover, the same people who spout that this is a "Christian Nation" founded on "Christian" principles, etc., are the same people who want the "Ten Commandments" on public property, namely, in our courthouses. Yet, you've recently gone on record to say that you "cannot point to" any applicable "list" of absolute laws. 'Not exactly consistant.
Karla: "We set up those laws to be consistent with a higher law and they are designed to be revised when found to be unjust or inconsistent with God’s truth."
The mistake you keep making over and over and over is that you assume that "unjust" and "God's truth" are mutually exclusive. It was once "just" to keep slaves, and during the civil war, the bible was used to justify the buying, selling, and beating of slaves. We've since "revised" that policy, not because it was "inconsistent with God's truth", but because it is inconsistant with being humane.
BTW, speaking of "God's truth" and "Final Authority", it is presumably "just" that a nonbeliever such as myself end up in "Hell".
So here's what I want to know, Karla:
a) how is that "merciful", and b) do I deserve it?
Jefferson was the primary author of most of those documents.
Mike, he wasn't the only signer. I find it interesting though that those who are proponents of American not having a Christian Foundation primarily use Jefferson as their source. He was the odd one out of the bunch and even he wasn't a deist (a deist being a person who believes that God created the earth and left it alone after that having no contact or requirements for it thereafter).
I didn't say signer, I said author. Whatever he was, he sure wasn't a Christian or Jewish.
He was the odd one out of the bunch and even he wasn't a deist
Whether he was, or wasn't, is immaterial in this case. None of the authors, to my knowledge, made direct references to "Yahweh" or "Jesus", IOW, to a specific god. Thus, any references to a generic "Higher Power", and you've got deism, at best.
Karla said: We know history repeats itself...
Does it? History sometimes *appears* to repeat itself - but only superfically....
Karla said: If that’s the case, how does it have final authority? Who gives it final authority?
The European Court has authority because the European Uninon gave it authority... and the Union has authority because - like all States - its citizens give it authority. *We* are the final authority - there is no one else.
karla said: I mean the God who is there.
The God who you *believe* is there.....
karla said: I think that people by turning to God and His ways can right the course of this nation (same with any nation).
Personally I'd be a bit more practical and real world... but that's just me.....
Mike “I didn't say signer, I said author. Whatever he was, he sure wasn't a Christian or Jewish.”
I know, I was countering that although Jefferson was the scribe of the documents, he wasn’t the only Founder involved in them, as is evidenced by the signatures.
Cyber “The European Court has authority because the European Uninon gave it authority... and the Union has authority because - like all States - its citizens give it authority. *We* are the final authority - there is no one else.”
So you do agree the buck has to stop somewhere, and in your view it stops with finite human beings. However, then there is the problem of which human beings have final authority? Some will and have rise/risen up to claim they have the authority whether we are talking about feudal lords, Kings, Pharaohs, oligarchies, Presidents, the people themselves, etc. Whose to say?
Cyber “The God who you *believe* is there.....”
My belief has nothing to do with it, either there is a God who is there or there isn’t. The God who is there would be the final authority no matter who He is.
karla said: I think that people by turning to God and His ways can right the course of this nation (same with any nation).
Cyber “Personally I'd be a bit more practical and real world... but that's just me..... “
I think this is very practical. Of course my statement above didn’t entail the details of what that would look like, but it would be very practical.
Boom “ The mistake you keep making over and over and over is that you assume that "unjust" and "God's truth" are mutually exclusive. It was once "just" to keep slaves, and during the civil war, the bible was used to justify the buying, selling, and beating of slaves. We've since "revised" that policy, not because it was "inconsistent with God's truth", but because it is inconsistant with being humane.”
Have you heard the story of William Wilberforce and the end of the slave trade? Also, it was just as unjust then as it is today. The justice of it didn’t change, the adherence to what is right and just is what changed. MLK’s famous words didn’t become true when he spoke them, but were always thus.
Boom “Moreover, the same people who spout that this is a "Christian Nation" founded on "Christian" principles, etc., are the same people who want the "Ten Commandments" on public property, namely, in our courthouses. Yet, you've recently gone on record to say that you "cannot point to" any applicable "list" of absolute laws. 'Not exactly consistant.”
There is no exhaustive list of moral laws. The Ten Commandments are a set of laws that reflect the absolute truth of God, but they are nothing more than words on a paper or memorial if the God they point to is not Himself the Absolute.
Boom “Whether he was, or wasn't, is immaterial in this case. None of the authors, to my knowledge, made direct references to "Yahweh" or "Jesus", IOW, to a specific god. Thus, any references to a generic "Higher Power", and you've got deism, at best. “
Well then you haven’t read as much of their original writings as I have then. BTW, Deism just means someone believes there is a God, but that God is not involved in the world – it’s like believing in a First Mover, but nothing more than that. This was not true of any of the Founders. Are you using Deism to mean something other than this traditional meaning?
"Well then you haven’t read as much of their original writings as I have then. BTW"
Ok, I haven't read all of the founding documents of this country, but I don't recall any mentioning Jesus or YHWH. The Declaration of Independence referred to Laws of Nature and Nature's God, but not to Jesus or YHWH, and the constitution makes no references to God at all.
So, where are these founding documents that mention YHWH and Jesus that you have read, but Boom has not?
Here are some quotes and where they are found from some our Founders including Jefferson.
“In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams
John Quincy Adams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837 (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 5-6.
Congress 1985 “The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Journal of the House of the Representatives of the United States of America(Washington, DC: Cornelius Wendell, 1855), 34th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 354, January 23, 1856; see also: Lorenzo D. Johnson, Chaplains of the General Government With Objections to their Employment Considered (New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1856), p. 35, quoting from the House Journal, Wednesday, January 23, 1856, and B. F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 328.
“It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Samuel Huntington, A Proclamation for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, March 9, 1791, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #23284.
“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
“The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”
Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.
“The Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life… [T]he Bible… should be read in our schools in preference to all other books because it contains the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public happiness.”
Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), pp. 94, 100, “A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book.
Great, but those have nothing to do with our government, they are personal statements. And the Jefferson "I am a real Christian..." quote was more a slam against other Christians of his time. have you read The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth? It's pretty enlightening, especially for modern evangelical Christians who try to claim him as one of their own. ;-)
karla said: So you do agree the buck has to stop somewhere, and in your view it stops with finite human beings.
It stop with us because there is nowhere else for it to stop.
karla said: Whose to say?
The people have always been the final arbiter of power and authority. We have let many different style of power exist and 'rule' over us but when that power goes too far the people bring it to its knees quite effectively....
karla said: My belief has nothing to do with it, either there is a God who is there or there isn’t.
Indeed. You believe that there is... I do not share your belief. You seem to be saying that the existence of God can be *proven* beyond belief in some way..... I have yet to see anything I regard as proof. Until such proof exists it is merely a matter of belief - or otherwise.
karla said: The God who is there would be the final authority no matter who He is.
Only if he exists and only if he warrents that authority.
"Have you heard the story of William Wilberforce and the end of the slave trade? ~ Karla
No, but I've heard the story of "Yahweh" and the "Holy Bible", and in said book slavery is condoned. Shall I provide the verses in question? Will that help?
continues...."Also, it was just as unjust then as it is today.
If it was "unjust" then, why did biblegod condone it then?
continues..."The justice of it didn’t change, the adherence to what is right and just is what changed."
No, what has changed, Karla, is that today's Christians don't follow the bible literally anymore, despite that some of you believe it is meant to be taken literally. You don't throw rocks at your teenagers; you don't keep and beat slaves(servants); you don't sacrific animals; you don't kill people who work certain days of the week; you don't throw stones at prostitutes; you don't kill family members who might happen to be nonbelievers; you don't attempt to heal your ill with bird's blood---you don't do ANY of these things. Why? Here's why: because YOU KNOW those practices are outdated, outmoded, unreasonable, and inhumane. That's why.
continues..."The Ten Commandments are a set of laws that reflect the absolute truth of God, but they are nothing more than words on a paper or memorial if the God they point to is not Himself the Absolute."
Okay, have it your way----do said Commandments "point to" the "Himself the Absolute", or not? Yes, or no?
If "yes", see next question...
Today in America, is it a "sin" to work on the seventh day of the week? Yes, or no?
If "yes", see next question...
Should we throw rocks at the "sinners" who work on the seventh day of the week? Yes, or no? (And this includes all the Christian book store employees who work on Sunday)
If "yes", then do you take part in this? If "no", why not?
"Well then you haven’t read as much of their original writings as I have then."
I'm talking about the constitution, specifically. To my knowledge, it doesn't mention "Yahweh", "Jesus", or "Christ" in said document. That some "writings" contain(ed) references to specific deities is immaterial, as those specific deities were omitted from the constitution for a reason, and that reason is because it would establish a certain religion.
"BTW, Deism just means someone believes there is a God, but that God is not involved in the world – it’s like believing in a First Mover, but nothing more than that. This was not true of any of the Founders. Are you using Deism to mean something other than this traditional meaning?"
I know what deism means, thanks. I'm simply saying that things like "Higher Power" are too vague, and at *best*, it can include deism. IOW, a "Higher Power" doesn't have to be a personal being. Nonetheless, if you'd like to throw "deism" out, then fine. You're still left with nothing that makes a direct reference to the Christian biblegod.
And BTW, if they all had said biblegod in mind, and if belief in said biblegod is "foundational", why didn't they just make the States a theocracy?... you know, the very thing that you and many of your constituents are pulling for?
Post a Comment