What Genesis Has to Tell America .......

Originally posted by ivanhoe
This thread is about the interpretation of a creation story and what that story is trying to communicate about the Natural Law. After that we can compare our findings with what the Supreme Court is stating about personal liberty and which consequenses this has for the Supreme Court's implicit interpretation of the Natural Law. We can discuss why the Supreme Court's interpretation is preferable or why it is to be rejected.

ah...that clarification was very nice and clear. thank you ivanhoe. i think your motives were unclear to me previously and i may have labelled you without justification. sorry for that.

in light of your clarification, i am not interested in the topic. i do not think it is a constructive use of time to compare our interpretations of genesis with the interpretations of the supreme court (but other RHPers might). in particular, i don't see any reason why the bible should have any say in our legal system.

Originally posted by LemonJello
ah...that clarification was very nice and clear. thank you ivanhoe. i think your motives were unclear to me previously and i may have labelled you without justification. sorry for that.

in light of your clarification, i am not interested in the topic. i do not think it is a constructive use of time to compare our interpretations of genesis with the ...[text shortened]... . in particular, i don't see any reason why the bible should have any say in our legal system.

ditto since it's just another guy trying to finagle a State based his religious views.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
....... About Natural Law


I found an interesting and cristalclear (!) article about what we have been discussing on these forums. It connects the creation stories of Genesis, the understanding of natural law and what the Supreme Court wrote in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2807 [1992].)

Eve Without Adam: Wh ...[text shortened]... /Research/Religion/HL570.cfm


Any comments or thoughts (after reading the article, please) ?

they might have added "religious freedom"

"At the heart 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." (Supreme Court)

Natural Law leads to a God-state, and God-states always have been oppressive.

Originally posted by frogstomp
they might have added "religious freedom"

"At the heart 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." (Supreme Court)

Natural Law lea ...[text shortened]... o a God-state, and God-states always have been oppressive.

As oppressive as the Utopian Evolutionary-Based Communist States perhaps?

God-states give a great amount of freedom within a healthy framework. Understandably they cannot infringe on basic rights such as what you believe.

The other alternative is to have "Atheistic" States, where everything is regulated for the plebs by the "enlightened" leaders.