The Right to a Secular Government

Atheistic naturalism destroys the possibility of natural rights, which would mean that no person has any inherent rights. The only rights anyone can have are those conferred to them by the people who are in power. Yet proponents of this worldview still argue for a completely secular government void of any reference to God as if it is their right.

Legal Writing Competition at Trinity Law School

Trinity Law School is hosting a legal writing competition on the topic of "A Christian's Response to Human Rights." Below is the information taken from the TLS website.

___________________________

Writing Competition

The Center for Human Rights invites the submission of scholarly papers.

Topic
Scholarly papers must address the issue of "A Christian's Response to Human Rights."

Papers may consider addressing issues of the source of Human Rights, the nature of Human Rights, why it matters if Human Rights have a religious or secular basis, how Human Rights are (or should be) protected and enforced, religion's role in protecting Human Rights, etc. Scholars are not bound by these suggestions and are encouraged to thoroughly address the topic in a manner that best addresses the pertinent issues.

Eligibility
Only students that are currently enrolled in a JD, LLM, and/or SJD program within the United States are eligible to submit a paper.

Article Format
Submissions must be original, unpublished academic works by one author. Students may only submit one paper. Multiple submissions will result in disqualification.

All papers must be submitted electronically to mmoore@tiu.edu. All submissions should be in English and in Microsoft® Word format. The text should be double-spaced in 12-point font with 1-inch margins. The length should be approximately 25 to 50 pages, including footnotes. Footnotes may appear in single-spaced 10-point font. All citations must conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation.

All papers must be accompanied by a single cover page that includes:

The title of the paper;
The author's name, address, telephone phone number & e-mail address;
The name of the author's law school, degree program (i.e., JD, LLM, or SJD) and anticipated date of graduation.

Submitted papers will not be returned.

The failure to comply with the requirements of the Article Format will result in disqualification.
Judgment Criteria for Award

Papers will be judged on originality, quality of writing and scholarship, depth of research and analysis, and readiness for publication. All eligible submissions will first be reviewed by members of the Trinity Law Review. Papers that pass initial review process will then be reviewed by a panel composed of the Director of the Center for Human Rights, select TLS Faculty, and editors of the Trinity Law Review.

Prizes
A First, Second, and Third place will be chosen from the eligible submissions. The prizes will be awarded as follows:

First Place: $1,000
Second Place: $500
Third Place: $250

The First, Second, and Third place winners will also receive expedited consideration for publication in the 2012/2013 Trinity Law Review, which will be a special symposium issue on the Center for Human Rights.
Submission Deadline

Submissions are due on or before April 15, 2012. No papers will be accepted after that date.

Winners will be announced by May 30, 2012, via e-mail.

Please submit all papers, questions, or inquiries to: mmoore@tiu.edu

God and Public Policy

It seems these days that the only people who are allowed to influence the State and its public policy with their views of God, are those who believe that God does not exist and those who believe that even if He does exist He would want a completely secular government where he is removed from the picture.

Doug

Capitalism and the Nature of Man

Why is it that people attack capitalism by stating that it is driven by greed and assume that man is basically evil and cannot be trusted with their success, yet in their “redistribution of wealth” models they assume that man is virtuous and will continue to be industrious to produce wealth for the country to redistribute even when their success is taken away from them and used at the government’s discretion?

Doug

God and the Establishment Clause

If the founders were moved to include the establishment clause in the Constitution because of their understanding of God, was that a violation of the establishment clause?

Doug

The Reason For Democracy

"A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. The real reason for democracy is: Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows."

-C.S. Lewis-

Glenn Beck, Mormonism, and Christians

It seems that there is a crucial distinction that needs to be made when it comes to Glenn Beck, his Mormonism, and his cause which many evangelical Christians are supporting. Based on what can be seen online so far, this distinction seems to be rising to the surface but has not yet been clearly defined. This distinction is between Beck’s promotion of conservative ideals (many of which seem to be Biblical), and the Gospel and his understanding of God. The first distinction is that there are many things on which evangelical Christians and Mormons can agree. For example, we can agree on the importance of family, the sanctity of life, the institution of marriage, and many other ideals which are clearly grounded in the Word of God. It is upon these very issues, and many others, that we can unite to combat the erosion that is taking place to the foundational principles upon which this nation was built. And this is a crucial fight since these are the very principles that were established in the constitution to combat tyranny and oppression. As we peruse the internet, is seems that one flaw is that many Christians are blind to this aspect of the commands of scripture. We are to free the oppressed and safeguard others so they will not be oppressed in the future. Another flaw is that others seem to see it as our sole calling. In other words they seems to equate Christianity with doing those things, and as long as you do them you are a Christian regardless of who you think Jesus was and what he accomplished while he was on this earth.

This leads us to the second distinction that needs to be made, and that involves the Gospel and the commands of scripture surrounding it. We must have the discernment to realize that Beck’s understanding of God and the Gospel is contrary to the truth of God’s word. First, his understanding of God is that the godhead entails a god the father and god the mother. These two began to produce spirit children, two of whom were Jesus and Lucifer. In the Mormon view Jesus is a created being and not the eternal God. Second, their understanding of the Gospel is that what Jesus accomplished on the cross is not center of our hope. In the Mormon view, what Jesus accomplished on the cross will only get people to the first level of heaven, which is still often equated with damnation. To them, the Gospel entails all the works you can do to get to the third level of heaven in order to become a god over your own universe. This of course is a seriously false Gospel. Now one of the main arguments made by some who argue that we should support Beck is that the Scriptures command us to stand for righteousness, and to neglect this is to neglect many commands of scripture. On this every Christian should wholeheartedly agree, but we are also commanded to stand against false teaching and false Gospels. To argue, like some have, that Beck is lifting up the name of Jesus, or that he is crying out so that the rocks will not have to, also seems to neglect crucial commands of Scripture. Beck is neither lifting up the true Jesus, nor is he fulfilling the words of Scripture when it says, if you do not praise him, these rocks will cry out.

In conclusion, there are many areas where we can agree and unite, and, as some have suggested, maybe even praise God that he has raised up a man to promote those truths (for the Lord often uses the unregenerate to accomplish his purposes), and Christians need to understand this and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It also seems important to keep in mind that Beck’s primary work has very little, if anything, to do with the Gospel. On the other hand we must also not be so blindsided with the things we can agree upon, that we neglect our due diligence to the commands of scripture in other areas. We must be discerning and, with the same emphasis as Scripture, emphasize the importance of the purity of the Gospel. And even though Beck’s primary work has little to do with preaching the Mormon gospel, the minute he invokes the name of Jesus, or uses the word “God,” we must be aware that he means something very specific by these terms. To believe that anyone can interpret those terms any way they want and that authorial intent does not matter, is imbibing in the very postmodern thought that is driving much of the secular liberalism which they are trying to combat. And worse, they are saying that the authorial intent (God’s meaning) of scripture doesn’t really matter either, as long as it helps us meet some pragmatic end.

Doug

Social Justice and the Nature of Man

Social justice seems to be something that everyone should be working toward, but why is there often differences of opinion between conservatives and liberals on the topic?

The Redistribution of Wealth and Social Justice

Everyone who believes that redistribution of wealth equals social justice, needs to understand the following.

"There might be some truth in that the State is God’s means to answering injustice but it is by no means clear who the unjust ones are. People are not right because they are poor; neither are they right because they are rich; people are right when their cause is just. Some people are rich because they abused the poor, which is another way of saying they stole their money. Some people are rich because they suffered and postponed trivial and fleshly indulgence for the betterment of their families and community, and when the leftists steal their money they are certainly the oppressor. The rich are not as easy to oppress as the poor but they are the more attractive target." - Christopher Neiswonger

Christianity, The Church, and Government

Why is it that many Christians who decry Christian political involvement (read Tony Campolo types) because power and politics are tools of Satan, then go on to argue for government solutions to global warming and health care? Do they really want Satan and his tools cooling our plannet and running our health care? Perhaps a more balanced approach is needed.

Should Christians be involved in government? Isn’t Christ our hope not politics? Is any influence of Christian thought on the state a violation of the separation of church and state? In this episode of Apologetics.com radio, Dean, Donald McConnell of Trinity Law School, Doug Eaton, and Lane Chaplin discuss several questions that pertain to the Christian’s role in government and the governments role in Christianity.

http://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=385:christianity-the-church-and-government&catid=43:kkla-995-fm-los-angeles&Itemid=74

This show can also be downloaded for free as a podcast in itunes. Simply search for apologetics.com in the itunes store.

Sustaining Freedom - Os Guinness

Here is a lecture given by Os Guinness at Trinity Law School’s God and Governing Conference.
For more information about Trinity Law School
Visit www.TLS.edu or Call 800-922-4748

Obama, Machiavelli, and the Bible - Vishal Mangalwadi

The Subtle Destruction of Rights - Hadley Arkes

"People of ordinary sensibility will feel sheepish before claiming a right to take the life of an innocent human being for their own self-interest. It is far easier to talk oneself into the notion that the small being in the womb is not really, or not yet, human, not human as you and I are. After all, it doesn’t yet look like a child, or have what looks like human form: it may be genetically homo sapiens, but is it fully human? It requires no elaborate theory to bring off that maneuver in rationalizing. People with college degrees, and pricey educations, have been doing it with ease now for over 25 years. But what is harder to recognize is that, as people talk themselves into that rationale, they are subtly, but decisively altering what James Wilson and the founders understood as the very ground of their natural rights – and the ground of our entire law. If we can arbitrarily alter the definition of a “man” as it suits our convenience, if nature provides no definition of a human being that we are obliged to respect, then – as we shall see – we remove the distinct ground of our claim to “natural rights.” But if we do that, if we remove “natural rights,” we would convert all rights into “positive law.” With that subtle shift, we would have removed, in effect, the very logic and substance of rights. For what we call “rights” then are simply the things declared to be right by the opinion that is dominant in any place. In that event, the “rights” enacted into law are merely the rights that a majority is willing to confer. But what the majority may confer, the majority may also remove when it no longer strikes the majority as right or convenient."

Hadley Arkes – Natural Rights and the Right to choose (p.31)

Humanism, Freedom, and Chaos - Francis Schaeffer

The humanists push for “freedom,” but having no Christian consensus to contain it, that “freedom” leads to chaos or to slavery under the state (or under an elite). Humanism, with its lack of any final base for values or law, always leads to chaos. It then naturally leads to some form of authoritarianism to control the chaos. Having produced the sickness, humanism gives more of the same kind of medicine for a cure. With its mistaken concept of final reality, it has no intrinsic reason for being interested in the individual, the human being. Its natural interest is the two collectives: the state and the society.

Francis Schaeffer – A Christian Manifesto (1981)

The Kingdom of the Golden Triangles: A Modern Day Parable

What would you think if someone called you a bigot because you refused to recognize their four-sided shape as a triangle?

Gay Marriage: Rights, Scripture, and that Whole "Love Your Neighbor" Thing.

After stating that homosexual marriage will not have consquences on those who hold to a traditional view of marriage, a friend of mine made this statement...

"The real issue is that Proposition 8 seeks to eliminate rights presently guaranteed by the California Constitution. That is a hateful thing to do so some of our neighbors. Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself".

A response to a friend...

It would seem to me that anyone who denies that there will be legal and social ramification on those of us (and our children) who do not believe that marriage includes homosexual couples is willfully choosing not to look. Also, homosexual marriage is not guaranteed by the California Constitution. Only recently, as you know, four radical judges completely reinterpreted what has always been there to include homosexual marriage. Prop 8 does not seek to eliminate an actual right given by nature and nature’s God, but instead seeks to eliminate an artificial "right" created by these four radical judges within the last few months.

The issue has nothing to do with equality either. Homosexuals always have had, should have, and will continue to have the right to marry. They can find someone of the opposite sex and marry them. There has never been a law or ruling that denies them this right. When we look at this way it really begins to clear up the issue. What they want is not equality, but a radically new definition of marriage. Anyone who argues for equality is simply begging the question that the definition of marriage includes same-sex couples.

The Biblical definition of marriage and the natural understanding of creation and the family have never included same-sex couples. In fact, scripture itself testifies that someone who embraces homosexual lusts and does not fight against them has been handed over to their lusts and are receiving the due penalty for their perversions.

Rom 1:26-27 Because of this, (denying God and degrading their bodies), God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Now I realize that those who support homosexuality as compatible with Christianity tend to read this as saying they changed their natural desires for unnatural ones. Meaning that if someone was heterosexual, they became homosexual which was unnatural to them, or if they were homosexual they became heterosexual because that was unnatural to them. This however is not found in the text. The text only states that men went with men because it is unnatural to do so, and women with women. There is no indication that the text includes homosexuals becoming straight. Further, it would make the text meaningless because this unnatural lust is actually a penalty, and what penalty would it be if someone who was homosexual actually started to desire being with someone of the opposite sex. This goes to show further that the term "natural" is not speaking of the "desires" but the design of bodies. Men’s bodies are not designed to go together in sexual relations and neither are women’s. A simple lesson in anatomy makes this clear.

This brings us to your assertion that we should love our neighbors as Jesus said, and denying them the right to marry actually fails to do this. Instead, as you say, it would be to hate them. I am sure that you are aware that when Jesus was asked, "what is the greatest commandment," He said to love the Lord your God, and then when He was asked the second greatest, He said, "to love your neighbor as yourself." I also assume that you understand that He was making the most basic summary for the first and second tables of the law. And I also assume you understand the first and second tables of the law are summaries of the entire law, and included in the moral aspects of the law we find laws against homosexuality (Lev. 20:13). Now it is true that all of the ceremonial laws and many of the judicial laws of the Old Testament have been altered by the coming of Christ, but Christ did not alter any of the moral aspects of the law. And the continuation of the immorality of homosexuality is clearly evidenced in the New Testament. It is found in Romans 1, which was just stated, and many of the other passages of scripture that speak of sexual purity. There would be no justification in the New Testament that when it speaks of sexual purity that it would include homosexual acts, which have been so clearly denounced in the Old Testament. If someone does this, it is clear that they are letting the current culture in which they live dictate their interpretation of scripture instead of letting scripture dictate their culture.

All of this is said to make the final point that when Jesus said love your enemies, He no doubt expected us to look to the moral law to figure out how to do this, because this is what He was summarizing. To love someone is to do what is best for him or her. It is not loving to encourage someone to live a sinful lifestyle. On the contrary it would actually be hateful to encourage someone to act in a way that would bring the judgement of God upon him or her. A parent does this all the time. If a child desires to do something they think will make them happy or something they think they need, a loving parent should deny it to them if they know it is harmful to them no matter how much temporary dissatisfaction it would bring them.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)"

-Doug Eaton-

Gay Marriage: The Self-Refuting Appeal to Secularism

Another of the most common arguments for gay marriage deals with religious grounding on the part of many people who hold to the current definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. It is argued that because of its religious nature, the definition of marriage needs to be revised. It needs to be more secular in order to not force religion on anyone.

The main problem with this argument, besides misunderstanding the nature of the separation of church and state, is that if you remove a religious basis for ethics and replace it with a secular one, you end up with a relativistic ethic. In a secular ethic there is no place to ground morality. Whether you ground them in the individual, a community, or some pragmatic end to which the ethic should be a means, individuals and communities tend to disagree. They also disagree with which pragmatic ends should be sought. In the end a secular ethic becomes self-refuting leaving no actual grounds to say that the current definition of marriage is wrong. This type of ethic always boils down to power because there is no real right and wrong. If the group who wants to promote gay marriage has more power they will win, or vise versa. But if this is the case, it would be illogical to say that it is unethical to not allow homosexuals to marry. Instead the argument should be, “there is no real right and wrong, and we desire gay marriage and we are tying to see if we have more power than those who don’t.” All appeals to equality, or separation would be mere smokescreens masking a play for power.

Finally, if someone does want to appeal to a universal transcendent objective ethic, there is no way to escape its religious nature, and in the end this would refute the separation of church and state argument stated at the outset.

Doug Eaton

Gay Marriage: The Myth of Governmental Neutrality

Often, when the topic of homosexual marriage comes up, there is an argument raised that suggests that even if we think marriage is between one man and one woman, we should not force our morality on others who disagree. The government, it is declared, should be neutral.

Now if we really spell this out, it quickly becomes apparent that governmental neutrality on this issue is impossible. The argument is essentially saying that since the government should be neutral, it should recognize, validate, and honor marriages between same-sex couples. But is a government that recognizes, validates, and honors same-sex marriages really neutral? Of course not, it is saying that same-sex marriages are valid, and if anyone refuses to recognize them the courts will step in to make sure that they do. In reality, the moral acceptance of gay marriage will be forced on people with differing moral views; the very thing that those who make this argument say the government should not do.

The crux of the argument is that the government should be neutral on controversial moral issues, but the absurdity of this becomes clear when we understand that the idea that “the state should be neutral on controversial moral issues,” is itself a controversial moral issue. Not everyone agrees with this. This would mean that the government should be neutral on whether it should be neutral or not, which is an absurd impossibility. Just like the idea that the government should be neutral on homosexual marriage.

Doug Eaton

Gay Marriage: The Equality Diversion

Proponents of homosexual marriage are quick to argue that marriage is a right, and anything less than gay marriage is inequality under the law, but are they right? Since we agree on the first statement we will not spend time defending it, but instead we will focus our attention on the last statement, which argues that homosexuals are being denied a right to marry and are being treated unequally under the law.

To address this equality issue, we will simply ask and answer two questions; do homosexual people have the right to marry, and are they being denied that right? Homosexuals do have the right and should have the right to marry, and they have not, and are not, being denied that right. There is no law that says they cannot find someone of the opposite sex and marry if them if they desire to do so. They are treated equally under the law.

Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, which is the basic building block of a family. There has never been a time when a homosexual has been denied this right, and pointing this out simply exposes the fact that equality is not the issue. What this is really about is a radically new definition of marriage. So the next time someone argues that homosexuals are looking for “equality for all,” lovingly remind them that they already have it, and that what they really want is something else.

If you are in California, vote yes on proposition 8

Doug Eaton

Socialism Loves Misery

“As love of liberty grows dim under socialistic suffocation, as coercion increases, the more brutal it will become. The basic methods of procedure were stated by Karl Marx, and they have been accepted, in varying degrees, by many who are not conscious of their origin. Marx was deeply interested in progress. For this reason, a clever social planner will provoke violence and bloody conflicts. Happy men are weak, but if they can be made wretched, they can be stirred to action. Class must be played against class, and hatred must be stimulated. The economy of nations must be ruined by huge governmental expenditures that lead to bankruptcy. Demagogues, willing to be looked on as God, will deceive the people with impossible promises of freedom from want and freedom from fear. Then a dictator can liquidate the remaining opposition and take control.


Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Thing P. 56 (1952)