Tuesday, July 14, 2009

The Right to Do Wrong:

There is controversy over whether NYU should have invited an anti-gay figure from Singapore to be a visiting professor of "human rights." I'm going to skirt most of that controversy and instead focus on one thing she asserted that I think needs to be discussed. She argued the right to "sodomy" is not a "human right" because the behavior is wrong and there can not be a right to do wrong.

I argue, on the contrary, in a free, "rights oriented" pluralistic society, there MUST be, in PRINCIPLE a potential "right" to do what arguably may be wrong. I don't think homosexual behaviors are wrong per se; but even if they were that still doesn't mean there could be no "human right" (natural right, liberty right, privacy right, however you want to term it) for it.

There are only two possible bases for homosexuality to be "wrong" in an objective sense. One is if the specific passages in the Holy Books that tell us the behavior is wrong are in fact divinely inspired. Personally, I don't think they are. OR, if the natural law case against homosexuality is true in a moral sense. Again, I don't think it is.

Re the biblical case against homosexuality, the Bible is a big complicated book. In a pluralistic society, (i.e., America's) some folks don't believe any of it is true; some believe parts of it are true; and some believe the entire good book is inerrant and infallible. And even those who fall into that later group profoundly disagree on what it teaches regarding moral and theological issues. For instance, my friend Gregg Frazer is a smart, biblically learned and intellectually capable evangelical-fundamentalist. AND he argues based on a long, rich orthodox political theological tradition that ALL rebellion against ANY government (including the Nazis and Communists) is wrong, a sin worthy of death, the moral equivalent of witchcraft.

So how could American "higher law" -- and the human rights derived therefrom -- be based on the inerrant, infallible Bible when Sola Scriptura can't "settle" the issue of "America 101." Moreover, it can't settle the issue of slavery either. And it also does not speak to religious liberty, the most unalienable of natural rights, the right that gave birth to the concept of political liberty (folks might wonder why I, a political libertarian, spend so much time on religion & the American Founding; this is it).

The right to religious liberty necessarily means a right to break the first tablet of the Ten Commandments and MANY other parts of the Bible. Whatever their differences, every single "key American Founder" believed men had a natural right to worship false gods (that is, religious liberty extended beyond the biblical religions). And even limiting "religious liberty" to those WITHIN the "Judeo-Christian" or Abraham tradition doesn't solve this problem.

Some of the more pious unitarians argued Trinitarianism is Idol Worship. If Jesus isn't God, it is morally wrong to worship him as one. This is the same rationale that gets Christians executed under Sharia law (of course the unitarians weren't arguing for that, just that Trinitarianism is immoral idol worship). Likewise many orthodox Trinitarians argue since God is Triune in nature, if you (Jews, Unitarians, Deists) don't worship a Triune God, you don't worship Him, but a false god and hence do what the Bible forbids. Heresy was an executable offense for most of the history of Christendom.

So, the notion that the inerrant, infallible Bible is the "higher law" from where human rights derive and that any thing the Bible forbids cannot therefore be a "right" does not accord with the idea of "rights" as posited by America's Founders.

Let me note, there is a way out for those who DO want society to be more easily ruled by biblical norms -- give up on the "rights talk" and, consequently the Declaration of Independence. The First Amendment may demand religious liberty for non-Christians. AND it may be a bad practical idea to refuse to permit non-Christians to worship as they please. But it's NOT because the Bible teaches a God given right to religious liberty (it doesn't) or because the Declaration is true (I'm not going to say either way) or that the Declaration's "Truths" come from the Bible (they don't).

Social conservatives might observe that the Constitution is unalienable "rightsless"; it recognizes a very limited concept of "rights"; and an unalienable rightsless Constitution permits religious conservatives to participate in politics and write their religious values into law.

This shouldn't be a controversial issue for religious and Christian conservatives; Robert Bork, Lino Graglia, Robert Kraynak and many others argue exactly this. They would say to even DISCUSS the issue of a "right to do wrong" unduly gives credence to "rights talk." "Natural rights" are a fiction. They don't neatly line with a conservative Christian or a traditional "natural law" worldview. And they are entirely absent from the text of the US Constitution. They are central to the Declaration of Independence; but that document is NOT law and hence can be ignored.

Social conservatives are on stronger ground, intellectually, philosophically and historically when they argue the concept of "natural rights" from the "natural law," as opposed to the Bible.

By natural law, we mean what man discovers from "reason" looking to "nature" without the Bible for help. If by "nature" you mean something written in the Bible then argue Bible and stop pretending you are arguing from a "different" channel.

I am going to skirt the very important issues of 1) whether the natural law exists, and 2) if it does exist and if Thomas Aquinas' understanding of it is correct, whether said understanding vindicates ideas of "unalienable rights," religious liberty, and a right to revolt against tyrants (arguably it does not).

Rather I want us to take the traditional understanding of the natural law as it is (complete with its prohibitions on homosexual conduct) and ask whether THAT possibly could serve as the basis for any meaningful concept of "rights." Like the Bible, Aquinas' book of NATURE is complex and demanding; like the Bible it is not a politically "free" code, but rather seems the opposite. I've heard one prominent natural law scholar claim Aquinas' natural law is "permissive" and thus in accord with political liberty.

I don't think it is; on sexual issues the ONLY convincing natural law case against homosexuality also forbids, among other things, masturbation, contraception, even between married couples, any time sperm is purposefully deposited outside of a womb.

The ONLY intellectually consistent natural law theory that forbids homosexuality also forbids these things. Any attempt to argue otherwise is a contrivance -- an intellectually faulty position that wants to have its cake and eat it too. If "natural design" proves homosexuality wrong; then "natural design" proves oral sex or contraception for married couples wrong as well. Men were designed for women, penis for vagina, sperm for egg. ANY break in that chain is as naturally wrong as any other break. OR maybe homosexuality, masturbation, and contracepted sex aren't "unnatural" in an "ought" sense.

The question then is, in a free, rights oriented society, DO we have the right do things that may violate the natural law? To which I answer, if rights are to have any meaningful content, of course we do. In PRINCIPLE, in the privacy of their homes, 1) a husband has a right to ejaculate outside of his wife's womb; 2) a married couple has a right to use contraception; 3) a teenager has a right to masturbate; and 4) homosexuals have the right to do what they do, consenting and in private.

31 comments:

Our Founding Truth said...

The right to religious liberty necessarily means a right to break the first tablet of the Ten Commandments and MANY other parts of the Bible. Whatever their differences, every single "key American Founder" believed men had a natural right to worship false gods (that is, religious liberty extended beyond the biblical religions). And even limiting "religious liberty" to those WITHIN the "Judeo-Christian" or Abraham tradition doesn't solve this problem.

Based on the above words, I could argue in relation to the first tablet of the Law, the framers restricted only behavior that was subversive of public order.

Unless not reiterated in the N.T. any other Biblical command is insync with Natural Law.

But it's NOT because the Bible teaches a God given right to religious liberty (it doesn't) or because the Declaration is true (I'm not going to say either way) or that the Declaration's "Truths" come from the Bible (they don't).>

Can you provide texts where Jesus prohibits freedom of choice? I would argue to differ. I would also argue the DOI truths come from the Bible from Natural Law.

Social conservatives might observe that the Constitution is unalienable "rightsless";>

I would argue with the Federalists that unalienable rights are within Natural Law, of which the Constitution is based.

any time sperm is purposefully deposited outside of a womb.>

Maybe in Catholicism, not in the N.T.

ANY break in that chain is as naturally wrong as any other break.>

As long as it does not subvert good order, it is left to the states, and subsequently the Natural Law.

1) a husband has a right to ejaculate outside of his wife's womb; 2) a married couple has a right to use contraception; 3) a teenager has a right to masturbate; and 4) homosexuals have the right to do what they do, consenting and in private.>

Only one of the four violates good order in society, which also violates Natural Law.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Only one of the four violates good order in society, which also violates Natural Law.

This is self serving sophistry. If any ONE of the four violates the natural law, they all do.

Re "violates the good order of society," NONE of them do.

Our Founding Truth said...

This is self serving sophistry. If any ONE of the four violates the natural law, they all do.

Re "violates the good order of society," NONE of them do.>

I argue #4 does subvert good order, as the framers punished homosexuality. Furthermore, the framers prohibited homosexuality in the military for that very reason.

Jonathan Rowe said...

The issue of whether homosexuality subverts public order is separate from the Framers' personal opinions on the matter. Homosexuality does not subvert the public order because it doesn't.

The Framers as far as I know had no policy on homosexuality in the military. GW had one soldier drummed out of the army for trying to rape another soldier. I would have done the same thing.

GW's attitude towards Von Steuben's homosexuality was don't ask don't tell.

Our Founding Truth said...

The issue of whether homosexuality subverts public order is separate from the Framers' personal opinions on the matter.>

I link the subversion of public order with the framers' words prohibiting homosexuality for that very reason, i.e., first code of conduct for military discipline by John Jay.

Homosexuality does not subvert the public order because it doesn't.>

The subversion of public order is correlated to homosexuality by being prohibited by the framers.

GW's attitude towards Von Steuben's homosexuality was don't ask don't tell.>

The Protestant Prince restored the Baron evidencing the charge was ill-founded.

Jonathan Rowe said...

1) Baron Von Stuben was a homo; deal with it.

2) Show me in Jay's code where it bans homosexuality (it might; I just haven't seen it).

3) You demonstrate a problem -- which likely stems from your confusing Americanism with orthodox Christianity -- with appeal to authority. The FFs were right about a number of things. But they were fallible, not inspired men. Just because the FFs said "revolting against tyrants is obedience to God," doesn't make it biblical or right. I think you've begun to see that.

Another example, whether contraception between married couples is wrong is a separate question from what the FFs thought about it. If I proved that anti-contraceptive laws were common during the Founding, would that "answer" the question as to what Bible believing Christians should believe on the matter. NO!

It doesn't matter what they thought about contraception or homosexuality. Neither subverts the public order.

Our Founding Truth said...

1) Baron Von Stuben was a homo; deal with it.>

The preponderance of the evidence appears to be against this charge, initially made by Mr. Shilts. He cites the foremost authority on Von Steuben, John Palmer, who says he wasn't a homosexual, and notes there is not one testimony claiming he was.

Palmer studied Von Steuben's life for eight years, looking at every memorial written about him to come up with his conclusion.

Von Steuben was apparently a protestant minister of some sort, for a Catholic Prince, who heard rumors made up by the rest of the catholic court, but was later restored. Apparently the Prince found the charge was bogus.

Allowing an openly gay officer in the Continental Army is a contradiction as well.

2) Show me in Jay's code where it bans homosexuality (it might; I just haven't seen it).>

I'll look for it, but let me know if you can find it. Washington's standing orders are clear, as well as the various State's prohibition against buggery.

It doesn't matter what they thought about contraception or homosexuality. Neither subverts the public order.>

The former has nothing to do with the N.T., but homosexuality does, which is evidenced by George Washington, and the States prohibiting it.

Jonathan Rowe said...

1) You have your authorities on VS. I can cite mine. I assure you you are wrong; he was a homo.

2) Washington's order was clear: Raping other soldiers is not permitted in the military.

3) Your understanding of the NT is irrelevant. a) Some theologians -- indeed some Protestant theologians argue contraception does violate the NT. b) America wasn't ruled by the NT alone; you concede that at the very least natural law was a supplement to Bible, indeed necessary to find a "right to revolt." Well arguably the same natural law dictates contraception between married couples is "unnatural." c) As far as the states prohibiting it, I think we need to look at founding era laws that regulated sexual morality ask whether they too outlawed contraception along with homosexuality. I wonder why you assumed they didn't.

Our Founding Truth said...

) You have your authorities on VS. I can cite mine. I assure you you are wrong; he was a homo.>

I'd like to see it, especially if John Palmer missed that testimony after eight years of study.

2) Washington's order was clear: Raping other soldiers is not permitted in the military.>

I don't see the evidence it was rape, and his general orders are against "immoral" behavior. Furthermore, you would need to present approval of homosexuality by the earliest military codes, which the States prohibited.

It is also clear James Wilson condemned buggery [sodomy], by repeating the exact words of Blackstone, inbdicating the crime was the same.

a) Some theologians -- indeed some Protestant theologians argue contraception does violate the NT.>

The question I would ask those theologians is, where is that in the text?

Well arguably the same natural law dictates contraception between married couples is "unnatural.">

Really? Who came up with that? I never thought contraception btwn married couples would be a part of Natural Law.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Really? Who came up with that? I never thought contraception btwn married couples would be a part of Natural Law."

Oy vey. This is what Christianity had taught for as long as it has embraced the natural law. The only reason why Protestants don't believe in this is because many of them have separated themselves from the natural law. You have a lot to learn. Contraception between married couples purposefully frustrates a sperm fertilizing an egg. It is as unnatural as homosexuality.

Jonathan Rowe said...

And by the way it's not even clear from the common law understanding of sodomy ala Wilson and Blackstone that they referred to homosexuality as opposed to rape.

See how many prosecutions from the Founding era re sodomy you can find -- you won't find many. And then see how many you can find that involved consensual behavior between adults. You'll find ZERO.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"I don't see the evidence it was rape,..."

The evidence is consensual sodomy takes two to tango. There were two parties involved in the controversy and only ONE was accused of wrongdoing. That suggests rape.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Something else to keep in mind about sex & the military. While the FFs may have entertained the idea that soldiers should not engage in "immoral behavior," such applied to today's military is a laughable joke. Whoring and fornicating are the norm in today's military. You take that away and then we won't have one. It's utterly hypocritical to focus on homosexuals while ignoring the heterosexual "immorality."

Our Founding Truth said...

Contraception between married couples purposefully frustrates a sperm fertilizing an egg. It is as unnatural as homosexuality.>

Again, posting the sources would be nice. I'm sure you see the problem comparing sperm that never touches an egg, and homosexuality, that is blatantly condemned in Scripture.

The only reason why Protestants don't believe in this is because many of them have separated themselves from the natural law.>

As with my own opinion, I would gather Protestants don't reject anti-contraception laws, not because of Natural Law, but because it isn't mentioned in Scripture.

And by the way it's not even clear from the common law understanding of sodomy ala Wilson and Blackstone that they referred to homosexuality as opposed to rape.>

Blackstone made it clear; homosexuality was punishable, a part of Common Law, of which, Wilson, and the framers were also ashamed to mention.

"What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime AGAINST NATURE COMMITTED EITHER WITH MAN OR BEAST. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . .
I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments).

-Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769), Vol. IV, pp. 215-216

The evidence is consensual sodomy takes two to tango. There were two parties involved in the controversy and only ONE was accused of wrongdoing. That suggests rape.>

If it was rape, the other soldier testified against him, evidenced by the perjury charge. This event shows attempted rape had a lesser punishment than consenual homosexuality.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I'm sure you see the problem comparing sperm that never touches an egg, and homosexuality, that is blatantly condemned in Scripture.

The only reason why Protestants don't believe in this is because many of them have separated themselves from the natural law.>

As with my own opinion, I would gather Protestants don't reject anti-contraception laws, not because of Natural Law, but because it isn't mentioned in Scripture.


The problem is that after all we've been thru you still don't understand what the natural law is. The Christian understanding of the natural law is that it is a supplement to the Bible, looking to nature discovered from "reason," and that the two will not contradict because both come from the same God. The more Enlightenment "rationalist" understanding uses reason/nature to trump the Bible.

Ignore the whole what trumps what debate for now. The traditional CHRISTIAN understanding of the natural law (the one that hold right reason will never contradict the Bible) TEACHES that contraception between married couples is always wrong. There are scriptures that can be used to support this (we'll may get into that later); but AS WITH THE RIGHT TO REVOLT this "Truth" was discovered from "reason" looking to "nature."

This teaching that forbids contraception between married couples does not contradict a SINGLE TEXT in the Bible because the Bible does not GIVE MARRIED COUPLES A RIGHT TO USE CONTRACEPTION. This teaching is FAR MORE authentically orthodox and Christian than the right to revolt which arguably contradicts Romans 13 and other passages of the Bible that seem to forbid revolt.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Re Blackstone, he was an English Tory who didn't support the American Revolution. The method of the Founding era was to pick and choose what it wanted from him and discard the rest. His utterances on sodomy deserve to be cast into the same TRASH box as his belief in Parliamentary Supremacy.

And by the way Blackstone's theory of sodomy isn't biblical; it's based on the natural law. The Bible forbids both bestiality and sodomy but it doesn't connect them under the genus of "buggery." The natural law (Blackstone is reciting Coke's natural law case against sodomy which Jefferson likewise recited) did and that same theory then forbids, you got it, contracepted sex between married couples as unnatural as homosexuality and bestiality.

Our Founding Truth said...

This teaching that forbids contraception between married couples does not contradict a SINGLE TEXT in the Bible because the Bible does not GIVE MARRIED COUPLES A RIGHT TO USE CONTRACEPTION. This teaching is FAR MORE authentically orthodox and Christian than the right to revolt which arguably contradicts Romans 13 and other passages of the Bible that seem to forbid revolt.>

I hold to Sola Scriptura, and the Reformers understanding of Natural Law. You may be getting your understanding from Catholic Teaching.

If the Scriptures don't prohibit it, I have liberty to do it, via Acts 15:28-29, although whatever the act, it may cause someone to stumble.

Jonathan Rowe said...

I hold to Sola Scriptura, and the Reformers understanding of Natural Law. You may be getting your understanding from Catholic Teaching.

As a factual matter you are just wrong. The reformers understanding of natural law prohibits contraception between married couples. It's not arbitrary Catholic whim that came up with this. It was Aquinas, following Aristotle, looking to Nature via reason and determining TRUTHS for EVERYONE regardless of your religious affiliation.

The only way to get out of this is to do what the Founding Fathers did not, reject the natural law.

If the Scriptures don't prohibit it, I have liberty to do it, via Acts 15:28-29, although whatever the act, it may cause someone to stumble.

Then you have to do what the Founding Fathers did not: Reject the natural law. That "right reason" natural law that Aquinas posited that was then adopted into Protestantism via Hooker: it forbids contraception between married couples.

Anyone who does is, accordingly, no different than a sodomite.

Our Founding Truth said...

The method of the Founding era was to pick and choose what it wanted from him and discard the rest. His utterances on sodomy deserve to be cast into the same TRASH box as his belief in Parliamentary Supremacy.>

Apparently the FF's picked buggery.

And by the way Blackstone's theory of sodomy isn't biblical; it's based on the natural law. The Bible forbids both bestiality and sodomy but it doesn't connect them under the genus of "buggery." The natural law (Blackstone is reciting Coke's natural law case against sodomy which Jefferson likewise recited) did and that same theory then forbids, you got it, contracepted sex between married couples as unnatural as homosexuality and bestiality.>

Without going through the entire text, it appears Blackstone wrote about buggery from the Scriptures(Lev 18 and 20). Coke referenced Common Law from the Scriptures, who Story used to rebuke Jefferson.

If contracepted sex is condemned in Natural Law, my guess is it could have come from a Catholic(post for another day), and not from the Scriptures.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Show me Blackstone citing versus and chapters of Scripture against sodomy. He doesn't. Scripture forbids both sodomy and bestiality but it doesn't connect them via the genus of "buggery." Whenever you see folks speaking of committing "buggery" with mankind OR beasts, they are invoking the natural law, NOT the Bible.

Read Coke, he says buggery is the genus of which sodomy & bestiality are species. That's NOT what the Bible says. That's the natural law understanding.

And again you are just wrong about natural law/contraception being anything Roman Catholic per se. It's natural law per se, which means applies to everyone. Every Protestant reformer who took the traditional view of the natural law re sex agreed with Aquinas on contraception being forbidden. Protestants only got around this when they rejected the natural law.

Our Founding Truth said...

It was Aquinas, following Aristotle, looking to Nature via reason and determining TRUTHS for EVERYONE regardless of your religious affiliation.>

Aquinas was Catholic. Jon, Aquinas was capable of error, just as Blackstone was, evidenced by going through Aristotle.

Then you have to do what the Founding Fathers did not: Reject the natural law. That "right reason" natural law that Aquinas posited that was then adopted into Protestantism via Hooker: it forbids contraception between married couples.>

I don't see it that complicated. Natural Law can be wrong, so I can exempt any portion of it(Rom 2:14-15), that conflicts with Scripture. It would be interesting to see if Hooker exempted contracepting as well.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Aquinas was Catholic. Jon, Aquinas was capable of error, just as Blackstone was, evidenced by going through Aristotle.

1) That Aquinas was a Catholic is irrelevant. When he spoke of sexual matters he did so as a natural lawyer, meaning someone who "discovers" God's truths from nature via right reason to supplement, not contradict, the Bible. It was this "right reason" on which the RCC bases its entire understanding of the natural law. And without Aristotle there is no "natural law," because he was the first to posit the concept.

I don't see it that complicated. Natural Law can be wrong, so I can exempt any portion of it(Rom 2:14-15), that conflicts with Scripture. It would be interesting to see if Hooker exempted contracepting as well.

This is NOT a serious statement. The whole idea of the theistic natural law is that it is God given and hence BINDING. You can't exempt ANY of it.

If someone's supposed understanding of "natural law" conflicts with scripture, you are right that the "traditional Christian" thing to do is categorize it as error. And arguably what this does is destroys the natural law case on behalf of rebellion to tyrants because THAT seems to conflict with scripture. The natural law case against contraception conflicts with NO scripture.

Jonathan Rowe said...

In terms of whether contraception between married couples actually does violate the natural law, instead of looking to what some authority teaches on the matter, what you SHOULD do is look to the argument.

Ed Feser is one of the most understandable expositors of this Thomistic understanding of the natural law. When he makes his case he is NOT speaking as a Roman Catholic but a natural lawyer who is demonstrating TRUTH ascertainable via reason that applies to ALL.

I can't find the original post of his on the matter; it's not at the URL where it was. But you can read MOST of it (plus my commentaries) at this post.

http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2005/05/feser-on-natural-law-good-post-with.html

Our Founding Truth said...

Whenever you see folks speaking of committing "buggery" with mankind OR beasts, they are invoking the natural law, NOT the Bible.>

Some(Webster, Sherman, Boudinot, et. al), not all, of the Orthodox, referenced the Bible for these sins.

Read Coke, he says buggery is the genus of which sodomy & bestiality are species. That's NOT what the Bible says.>

I did read Coke. He referenced the Scriptures through Common Law, not Natural Law. Coke's classification for buggery is interesting, but not contradictory, in lieu of him invoking the Scriptures. Whichever way one used the term "buggery", both are condemned in the Bible as sin.

Every Protestant reformer who took the traditional view of the natural law re sex agreed with Aquinas on contraception being forbidden.>

Who, where is the reference? Not every aspect of Natural Law is consistent with the Scriptures, for obvious reasons; case in point, rebellion to tyrants.

Our Founding Truth said...

And without Aristotle there is no "natural law," because he was the first to posit the concept.>

Tell Hooker that.

The whole idea of the theistic natural law is that it is God given and hence BINDING. You can't exempt ANY of it.>

Parts of Natural Law are not binding, evidenced by Calvin's perusal of the Scriptures in rejecting rebellion to tyrants, hat aren't a part of the existing authority.

The natural law case against contraception conflicts with NO scripture.>

Then read Acts 15, which Frazer would second, is the Apostles' direct command to the Church.

By the way, when I get home, I'll post where Blackstone affirmed inerrancy, and EVERY command given through the N.T., otherwise, reason was to take effect.

Our Founding Truth said...

The natural law (Blackstone is reciting Coke's natural law case against sodomy which Jefferson likewise recited) did and that same theory then forbids, you got it, contracepted sex between married couples as unnatural as homosexuality and bestiality.>

My bad. Story quoted Chief Justice of the Common Pleas John Prysot in 1458, 160 years before Coke, who held the same position. However, Blackstone couldn't have used Coke's Natural Law theory, because he believed supremacy of the Scriptures.

A post on Coke's view of Natural Law would be interesting. King James fired him for holding the supremacy of Common Law.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Jon is correct. According to the Founders, natural law and scripture will never be in conflict. Further, you can't alternate between scripture and natural law depending on the situation.

It's never been held by the "Catholic" [actually pre-Reformation] Aquinas or Protestants like Hooker and Grotius that scripture gives a "dispensation" from the natural law in any situation. They are in harmony.

And if the American notion of liberty is based on a natural law argument [and it is], surely you can't dump natural law for sola scriptura when convenient. [Natural law theory forbids "x", but the Bible doesn't mention it, so it's OK.]

As for contraception, you both may enjoy this article.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=03-03-041-b

Although men can differ on what natural law says we should do---it's not scripture, it's only "reason"---the contraception issue seems pretty historically unambiguous here:

"Mr. Provan lays out what could be termed the “traditional Protestant case against artificial birth control: first, by showing the biblical grounds; second, by answering key objections; and third, by quoting biblical expositions taken from a list of 100 Protestant theologians, commentators, pastors, etc. All of the greats are mentioned: Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, Bucer, Ursinus, Baxter, Owen, Mather, Wesley, Spurgeon, Leupold, et al.; from all the “traditions within Protestantism: Luther, Reformed-Presbyterian, Anglican-Episcopalian, Puritan, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, etc. His conclusion is not that merely many or even most have opposed birth control: “We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900’s. NOT ONE!”

Oh, and OFT, thx for your defense of me at yr blog. It was appreciated.

Best,---TVD

Our Founding Truth said...

And if the American notion of liberty is based on a natural law argument [and it is], surely you can't dump natural law for sola scriptura when convenient. [Natural law theory forbids "x", but the Bible doesn't mention it, so it's OK.]>

This is where I have a problem. It appears to me, the only way to justify Right Reason is by the Scriptures, or else how is it right? I agree not to forbid "x" by Natural Law because the Bible doesn't invoke it. That still doesn't justify violating the Natural Law.

Luther, and Spurgeon's words on artificial birth control would be interesting to see. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from your Catholic background, sexual intercourse is only for procreation, from which celibacy derives, correct?

Lindsey Shuman is too hardcore for me.

Tom Van Dyke said...

No. The marital act must be "open" to procreation. However, women past menopause are certainly not forbidden to have sex. And the interpersonal bonding that sex can offer is a full part of the marital act as well, all consistent with natural law.

The celibacy thing is based on Mt 19:12

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Plus, according to critics, that the church didn't want heirs complicating the ownership of church property.

I agree not to forbid "x" by Natural Law because the Bible doesn't invoke it. That still doesn't justify violating the Natural Law.


Well, you're almost there.

Think of scripture as the cross-check. If natural law reasoning comes up with a conclusion contrary to the scriptures, the reasoning is faulty. I believe even Locke says that in his letter to the bishop.

But can man live only according to the letter of the law and still be pleasing to God? [That was the flaw of the Pharisees.] It takes more than that, eh?, and every contingency isn't covered in the Bible.

Therefore---so the argument goes---right reason and the natural law must be followed as well, if a man should live his life in a way pleasing to God.

Our Founding Truth said...

surely you can't dump natural law for sola scriptura when convenient.>

I apparently misunderstood your above statement.

Our Founding Truth said...

Jon,

I found the quote I thought supported inerrancy in Blackstone's Commentaries, but all it says is, basically [any command given in the scriptures is supreme, everything else is left to the legislature]

It's difficult to get his view on Christian fundamentals from that, although, there is no rejection of them.