- The Annihilation of Marriage-Part One
- The Annihilation of Marriage- Part Two
- Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right
- Scalia Indicts Windsor Decision’s Intentional Bias
- Scalia’s Windsor dissent: Deficient in principle?
- U.S. Judge discards unalienable right of marriage
- Liz vs. Mary: How Both Cheneys Mistake the “Gay Marriage” Issue
- The flaw of Judge Allen’s precluded muddle
- Enslaved by mammon: Brewer, GOP elitists abandon unalienable right
- The elitists’ war on human nature
- Family ties and the natural basis for property
- Legally Institutionalizing homosexuality threatens America’s rights and liberty
In my last post I said that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of the conscience protection act approved by the Arizona legislature “adds to the overwhelming evidence that the GOP’s elitist leadership is at war” with Americans “who will not surrender the Declaration’s commitment to God endowed right, justice and self-government (of, by, and for the people)”. What purports to be a movement for so-called homosexual “rights” is in fact intended to discard, once and for all, the idea of God-endowed unalienable rights, inherent in the Creator’s information of all human beings (i.e., our human nature). The transcendent authority of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” is the source or origin from which certain natural penchants or inclinations derive their special claim of right. Without reference to it, as the authoritative first principle of unalienable right, the logic of democratic, republican self-government collapses.
This is so because the “consent of the governed”, from which governments are supposed to derive their just powers (according to the organic law of the United States), has no lawful authority but what derives from the common exercise of right that informs it. The mere fact that a gang of murderous thieves agree amongst themselves to plunder and exterminate the innocent inhabitants of a prosperous village does not make their prospective crime an application of the just power of government. Neither does the corpse strewn, smoking ash heap of the village they leave in their wake when, by superior force, they have successfully implemented their common will.
But when the innocent villagers resist their assault, their exertions in common defense of their belongings (beginning, of course, with their own lives and the lives of their children) are an exercise of right, justified by the law of nature, which places the preservation of these God-endowed lives among the first obligations of their existence, as individuals and as a species. Their consent to associate together in joint and mutual fulfillment of this obligation is an obvious example of the “consent of the governed”, illustrating the common impulse of nature it involves, but also the just power of government it produces. The justice of that power obviously derives from the fact that the common action of the villagers arises from a conscientious natural imperative that governs the actions of those who rally in defense of their lives and common life.
Thus conscience can make warriors of us all, impelling us to war against those who are united by some common impulse of greed or other lustful ambition. Herein lies the distinction between the American republic and the republic of ancient Rome, to which, on account of its great success, it is frequently (and somewhat carelessly) compared. The Roman republic arose in consequence of the successful assertion of superior power, which then took on the trappings of justice in order more quietly to possess what it had conquered. The American republic arose in consequence of the successful defense of an assertion of justice, for which America’s founders sought to erect a framework for power consistent with that assertion. They expected that it would, albeit with constant disquiet, allow a moral, vigilant and energetic people to perpetuate and extend the justice they had, by God’s Providence, temporarily secured.
Throughout my lifetime elitist elements in America have been working to substitute the forceful Roman vision of republican power for the persuasive American vision of republican justice. In so doing they have assiduously worked to transform the politics of the United States. They aim to change it from a turbulent exercise in which people, with a common sense of right, compete in pursuit of justice; into a pantomime of competition that masks the real and exclusive pursuit of power. Through this pantomime elitist groups, defined by common greed or other such appetitive ambitions, quietly manage the competition amongst themselves, so that together they can manipulate and subdue the people they are determined to dominate and exploit.
In consequence of this agenda, the elitist elements (I refer to them as the elitist faction) have more and more pervasively encouraged Americans to base their sense of individual and communal identity on need, greed, and sexual and other forms of lustful ambition. (Ambition: from the Latin, ambitio, which refers to going or wandering around. Hence the emphasis on promiscuity when it comes to sexual relations; novelty when it comes to goods and services; and the endless quest for power after power when it comes to politics.)
This leads to a social culture that impels people to live in the moment: the sound bite characteristic of the so-called news media; the quickly flittering image-based entertainment media; the twittered word or phrase increasingly characteristic of the cyber-social media. Of course, this preoccupation with momentary perception and experience truncates thought, pushing people toward a state of consciousness that more and more resembles what we assume to be the condition of animals or even insects. It is the enemy of conceptual thought.
Conceptual thought is for people who are used to holding diverse moments of thought together in their conscious minds all at once. This allows the perception of concepts, and the development of logical reasoning by way of concepts, so that different activities and courses of action can be considered not just in terms of their probable outcomes, but also in light of a standard that determines the character and moral quality of the end one aims to attain.
The preoccupation with momentary experience also predisposes people to succumb, without reflection, to the impulses of the moment. Individuals so disposed are more susceptible to the pricks and goads of pain and pleasure, or of passionate aversions and attractions so that, by premeditated manipulation of their experience, others can dictate their patterns of behavior. It’s easy to see why elitists bent on dominating their society would want to transform individual consciousness along these lines.
“If it feels good, do it.” “If it feels bad, avoid it.” This is the mantra of consciousness that degrades the aesthetic, and ultimately the moral sense until, with more even consistency than a herd, people can be regimented to comply with the intentions of a totalitarian regime. Purporting to establish programs to serve them, such a regime in fact programs them to serve the selfish interests of those few who purposefully hold on to the capacity for deliberate imagination and thoughtfulness that preserves their own distinctive (they will eventually say superior) humanity.
In everything they did and said, the prevalent founders of the United States rejected this degrading vision of “human” life. Even their style of speech and writing reflects this: longer sentences and paragraphs, for people accustomed to holding diverse things in mind as they deliberate carefully upon them. In this the founders were greatly influenced by Biblical Christianity. So, instead of encouraging people to give in to their momentary impulses of lust and passion (what the Apostle Paul refers to as “the law in my members”, Romans 7:23), they challenged them to accept and rely upon the discipline of conscientious, deliberate, rational thought (what Paul refers to as” the law of God, in my inner being”, Romans 7:22, and “the law of my mind” which the “law in my members” wars against, Romans 7:23).
If you think through this contrast between America’s prevalent founders (many, if not most of whom were themselves among the elite of their day) and the elitist faction leaders currently holding sway in our politics, you understand why, for the latter, the push to canonize homosexuality has become the litmus test of acceptable social behavior. Throughout the ages people have engaged in various hedonistic sexual practices, but not until now have some sought, by force of law, to pretend that the failure to approve such barren practices somehow disparages humanity.
This assertion erases the distinction between the law in our members (natural law with no particular regard for humanity) and the law of God conscientiously discerned in our inner being (the law arising from and on account of the self-recognition and self-possession that is the distinguishing feature of human consciousness). But if respecting this distinction of laws reflects an essential quality of our humanity, erasing it degrades humanity in a way that practically extinguishes our claim to be considered as such.
Pretend, if you like, that this is just a side issue in our politics. But where liberty is itself defined as an unalienable right, endowed by our Creator, whatever destroys respect for the distinction that defines what is or is not alien to humanity destroys the special status of the exercise of right derived from that respect. Could this be why, in a world obsessed with homosexual so-call “rights”, all the heretofore acknowledged unalienable rights of our nature are being threatened with extinction?