(I don’t think we’ve fully entered into what historians will call the “21st”  century — it does not yet appear what the full consequences of the 20th century are.  But I’ll go by the calendar.)

judge agreeableJudges deserve respect.  Of course they do.    But if the man who is appointed to be judge knows nothing about civil law,  ethics,  a just society,  and the objective  and unchanging principles of human philosophy,  he has, then,  only popular opinion to be  stand on.   Or: “He is being responsive to the changing times,”  which, of course,  means he has only popular opinion to stand on when making his “decisions.”

Popular opinion is not a benign force.   It evolves out of the power some people have to influence others,  and  money that exchanges hands to create that influence;  and it produces confusion, unrest,  discontent,   changeableness,  servitude,   loss of choices, and eventually loss of freedom.

And someone or someone’s agenda is usually behind the development of some “popular opinion.”

Judges left(I don’t lean that way.)

Listen to an American Supreme Court judge writing about a matter of supreme moral importance:    “The core of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe,and of the mystery of human life.”       (Justice Kennedy) 

Yep.  Pretty much covers every topic that might come up.

You get to define things the way you want to.   (Except if you disagree with these people.   No tolerance for you if you disagree.  And, as Kim Davis found out,  no freedom either.    She will never be a quiet, anonymous citizen again.   She will always be watched by the media “in case” she acts against popular opinion again.  She will never be really safe.   The most vile, the most horrid, the most pornographic and violent threats have been made against her.    )

Again — this is what you have to believe:  every man for himself,   every man his own god,   and there is no way to discover objective moral standards that keep our society safe and strong:         “The core of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe,and of the mystery of human life.” 

Here is what another American Supreme court judge commented on that (majority) opinion:   This “mystery of life” principle kicks the struts out from under the rule of law and makes it impossible to resolve conflicts of rival moral visions — except by imposition of power.     (Justice Scalia)

No.   Way.   To.  Resolve.  Conflicts.

“Except by imposition of power.”

That would be “power over you.”   There is no appeal if you’re on the losing side of the conflict, unless you have enough to offer the ones who are currently in power. 

“Imagine a world where there is no”   Ten Commandments?      No.    Better we should all be “rightly dividing”  the meaning and application of an objective set of Commandments that transcend human intellectual invention.

That’s a lifetime of humble work.

Explore posts in the same categories: 2015 Issues, Christ the King, Ten Commandments

Tags: , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: