Applying The Natural Law to some of today's most controversial issues
Thought for your day #22, Sun 9/17/00.
It would be so much easier to not write this.
Remember, we are not "supposed" to talk about religion or politics. And if we do, we must never, ever suggest religion can affect politics.
But that is the coward's way out. Here, I want to take The Natural Law and simply apply it to some of today's hotly debated issues.
This is actually a "scientific" process. This is a simple, straightforward application of the Natural Law.
If the Natural Law is the correct basis for our social interactions, then the results on this page follow almost automatically.
Agree or disagree, I would like your feedback.
 | "Homosexual marriage?" 2 free people have the right to enter into whatever kind of voluntary relationship they want. However, many of the things that are meant by "marriage", especially in the legal framework, are violations of the Natural Law: tax rates and social security benefits, just to name 2. |
| "How to protect social security?" "Social security" is a violation of the Natural Law. If people choose not to save for their own retirement, removing 15.3% (the actual rate) of every dollar their grandchildren earn in order to pay for it is coercive and immoral. |
| "Should prayer be allowed in the public schools?" This is a case where the question is wrong. The real question is, "Should public schools exist?" And the answer is "No." Again, many books can and have been written about the superior nature of private education. But even that is not the point. The only valid purpose of government is to deal with violations of the Natural Law; this does include a military, but does not include "enforced indoctrination" of children in a governmentally-run "goo-farm" (aka public school system." |
| "Democrats vs. Republicans?" This, honestly, is a joke. For all intents and purposes there is only one party. I call it the Demo-Publican Party. One "extreme" thinks 50% of the average person's money should be stolen from them. The other "extreme" thinks only 47% of the average person's money should be stolen from them. Neither side of the Demo-Publican Party believes in real freedom, and dedicates it full energies to maintaining a government that runs your whole life: from the content of the radio you wake up to to how your hospital birth is paid for, to stealing half of whatever money and property you may have left at the end of your life, the Demo-Publican Party wants to control you. |
| "Is Jesus really present in Communion, or only symbolically?" This has nothing to do with inter-personal relationships, and therefore the Natural Law has nothing to say about it. (Are you paying attention here?) |
| "Should we raise the minimum wage?" Above and beyond the fact that a "minimum wage" is a governmental raping of a free market that of course violates the Natural Law, what a "minimum wage" effectively does is make it illegal to work unless you can produce goods or services worth $X per hour. Thus more unemployment....Thus the "need" for more government training programs, welfare, etc....Thus the need for more bureaucrats, which is the real purpose of almost all legislations: to keep people weak, needing more government. It is called job security. |
| "Abortion?" Look....This is a tough one....I happen to think the U.S. Supreme Court actually "got this one right." For the first 6 months that fetus is not able to live on its own, and really is only an extension of the woman's body. About the 7th month, though it is really challenged, the fetus becomes "viable", meaning able to live outside the womb. And abortion after the 6th month is (in most places) legal only in extreme cases of danger to the mother. Regardless, making abortion illegal will not help anyone. |
| "The war on drugs?" Assuming we are talking about adults voluntarily doing what they want in the privacy of their own home, no drug (in that context) should be illegal. No matter how stupid or dangerous it may be, people have the right to live as they choose. Just because we "do not like" something is not sufficient reason to make it illegal; again, only violations of the Natural Law should be illegal. |
Well, I could go on and on, but I've probably made enough people mad for one day.
To repeat, the real questions here are:
- Whether or not
truly
expresses how
the universe is. For The Church of Yahweh it expresses, in one
powerful word, who God is, who we are, how we relate to God, and how we
should relate to each other. - If that is true, then there are quite clear (and simple) steps that can be taken to bring our personal lives into closer alignment with that Word.
- And that Word tells us how we should live.
What is presently lacking is our moral courage to make this happen.
Finally....How Then Should We Live?
