The Elena Kagan Mistake

In the initial days following the nomination of Elena Kagan, I found something deeply unsettling about the woman.  It had nothing to do with her own person, but rather the seeming lack of a substantive paper-trail for such a purported high-level intellectual.  How is it possible for a person to spend so many years in both academia and politics without having formulated a public opinion regarding the great issues of our times?  How is it possible to remain nothing more than an arbiter and a logic-box for the policies of other men?  It all seems so downright contrived as to be disturbing to no small degree.

Without being able to demonstrate any modicum of wisdom or substantive policy opinion, we're supposed to accept Elena Kagan to the most powerful post in the land because -- as liberals keep repeating -- "she's really smart."

Now, after days of questioning, we finally have the bombshell statement which should blow the hearing wide open.  In response to Sen. Tom Colburn's question regarding the fundamental right to bear arms, Ms. Kagan replied: "I don't have a view of what are natural rights, independent of the Constitution."

Yet is it the bombshell that nobody will notice?  While Kagan's statement should automatically disqualify her, we've come to a sad state in our society where 'Natural Law' - the very foundation of the American experiment - is no longer openly discussed.  Never mind that our "inalienable rights" proceed from Natural Law, and that Natural Law proceeds from our Creator.  When I recently asked a gay rights activist how he can possibly justify his silly arguments in the face of natural law, he responded: "if you like Natural Law so much, then go live in the jungle."

No, sir, I like Natural Law a great deal, which is why I live in the United States of America.  My free will and the right to express and defend it are given by God.  The defense of the Natural Law is America's unique role and purpose in history; it is our greatest justification to exist as a nation.  It matters little whether women like Elena Kagan see fit to uphold our inalienable rights, because they are absolutes, not "opinions."  No law can usurp what is objectively true and not cause irreparable social harm.  In America, we cannot deny the terrible legacy of legalized slavery or the holocaust of legalized abortion.  Both are examples of what happens when Natural Law is not fully considered.  Yet most of our elected officials remain either too clueless to make the correlation between Natural Law and inalienable rights, or too cowardly to press the point.

It seems that in Elena Kagan's world, the constitution is the only absolute under consideration in the American experiment.  In making such an assumption, she shows herself to be out of line with the American experiment, and completely unqualified to defend our inalienable rights as expressed -- not defined -- in the Constitution.

Somewhere out there, Joseph Stalin is giving a dusty, heartfelt cackle.  History has already shown us what happens to nations which ignore the mandates of natural law, and it is not a pretty fate.

God as the Practical Answer

Life with God is the easiest and most practical choice that man can make...

Thomas Paine wrote that "Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."  

Yet freedom, once earned, presents a quandary.  Is it possible that modern man has too many choices?  Furthermore, is it possible that he does not have the necessary spiritual formation to help him sort through the dizzying myriad of possibility before him?

Centuries after Paine, John Paul the Great said that "freedom consists in doing what we ought."  This is the quintessential truth about how to use our hard-earned freedom, and yet it is meaningless with an absolute reference point.  The freedom which Thomas Paine espoused -- and which John Paull II so perfectly defined -- needs God at its center.  To have any other reference point, be it a political ideal or a single man's will, can only lead to moral and aesthetic anarchy.  Our founding fathers understood this clearly when they used the phrase "we hold these truths to be self-evident."  Without God, nothing is self-evident.


Yet as elegant and clear as this idea is, so many modern men either ignore or outright reject their God.  I recently came across the blog of a former student, now blissfully wandering the world and glorifying hedonism.  Confusing old thoughts and values with recent hippy social disasters, he blissfully sums up his worldview with a quote from the American poet and author, Charles Bukowski:

“I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”

One would have to labor greatly to cram so much idiocy into such a short paragraph.  Little wonder that Bukowski led such a shallow and narcissistic life, exemplifying the utilitarian and anti-humanistic despair that his type of "un-religion" was designed to breed.  I say "designed" because the above quote from Bukowski -- and other world-views similar to his -- are not a modern invention.  They come from a far deeper malice and a far more clever deceiver than the average hippy could hope to contend with.  Notice that in Bukowski's own prose, "god" is spelled with a small 'g,' while "Death" becomes a capitalized personality.  Notice the appeal to un-education, as such a worldview requires a mind easily deceived.  Notice the appeal to anti-religion, as such a world-view needs an unformed soul to corrupt. These are not coincidences, considering the spiritual root of such a phrase, as well as the moribund destiny of anybody who would follow such a thought to its inevitable conclusion.

God, in the end, is the impractical practicality.  Belief in him is the only sensible answer.  It brings sense to our lives by giving us understanding of our world.  It explains suffering, giving us a way to use this inevitable pain in a redemptive fashion.  It puts history into an understandable perspective.  It gives us rules by which to live, while presenting an ideal by which no rules will be necessary.  It frees human love to be an infinite gesture.

In short, it provides freedom.  He who seeks to be free must seek to "do as he ought."  In asking what we "ought," there is only one sure place to gain an answer.  There is no alternative path but the role of the aimless wanderer, and he is sure to get nowhere...

"Shall we reinstate Slavery, then?"

***The following is an excerpt from a recent debate between two prominent politicians. Congressman Smith is a noted liberal, while Senator James is a prominent Secular Humanist.***

Congressman Smith: "Shall we reinstate slavery, then? Is that really what you're suggesting?"

Senator James: "Absolutely! It's my distinct opinion, Congressman Smith, that abolitionism inflicts upon my rights as an American consumer. After all, if you don't want slaves, then don't own one!"

CS: "Well, that's purely ridiculous. You are actually seeking to enslave other human beings? You have no right to do that to other people!"

SJ: "Their being "people," Mr. Smith, and therefore afforded Constitutional rights, is merely your opinion. Despite the outward appearances and biological viability, I tend to believe them to be no more than animals."

CS: "But how can you say that? Just look at them! They're human!"

SJ: "It's no more than your opinion vs. mine, and America provides us both with the right to our opinion, does it not?"

CS: "That's ludicrous!"

SJ: "No more, sir, than your position on abortion."

CS: "Well, that's a hot topic of great debate. Women must have a choice."

SJ: "And I want my choice of slaves, then. If you choose to parse and label humanity for your own convenience, than I shall do the same."

Moderator: "Clearly we have reached the limit of this topic. Let's move on to sexual ethics. Senator James, you've been accused of pedophilia for your alleged involvement with a seventeen year old girl. How do you plead?"

SJ: "Well, sir, first of all, there was no intercourse involved.. And if there was, what of it? She's as adult a girl as I've known, intellectually stronger than most women I know."

CS: "I can't believe my ears. First you argue in favor of slavery, and now for pedophilia?"

SJ: "Why is it pedophilia? She is a sexually viable woman, mature enough to make her own decisions. If two such consenting adults decide to be together, what business is it of yours?"

CS: "But she's not an adult! She's only seventeen!"

JS: "Now you're quibbling with legal labels, sir. Such a law is a gross generalization, and cannot apply to all young women. After all, great kings and nobles of the past have had wives who were barely old enough to qualify as teenagers!"

CS: "But that is not our American standard! We know better than to do such things! It's simply wrong!"

SJ: "Stay out of my bedroom, Congressman."

CS: "What you are doing is clearly wrong, and such thinking is very dangerous."

SJ: "Oh really, Congressman? What about natural law? What about God's implied viewpoint on the issue?"

CS: "Such things do not concern me, Senator James. I'm merely concerned about upholding the law."

SJ: "As am I, Congressman. In this case, I call your laws subjective and immoral. I feel that if the social standard be the only one, then your beliefs are infringing upon my beliefs. The Constitution urges me to oppose immoral leadership!"

CS: "Yet what you are doing continues to be illegal."

SJ: "If you choose to apply subjective labels to what is -- or is not -- carnally acceptable in this nation, then I will do the same. I hereby propose an amendment to redefine marriage as being possible between a man and a woman as young as fifteen. In doing so, I not only liberate young women, but follow in the tradition of our ancestors. I also challenge the dominant hegemony, who I feel wrongly assert their sexual morality upon the rest of us!"

CS: "That's absurd!"

SJ: "Is it, Congressman? How about your own husband in Massachusetts? How is such an alternative lifestyle legally possible?"

CS: "That is unfair. We are two consenting adults, living a peaceful and agreeable life together. It is our right to do so."

SJ: "Well, then you and I disagree on the legal meaning of the word "marriage." In which case, I would also like to disagree on the legal meaning of the word "adult," as so many States already do. I will take my seventeen year-old mistress to Georgia, where we shall be legally bound, despite your bigoted and heterophobic protests."

CS: "You're bordering on the ludicrous, Senator James."

SJ: "Am I? I've only used your own logic and beliefs under a different pretense... If your way of looking at the world is the correct one, then it makes no difference that we disagree, even on such fundamental issues..."

***
I of course in no way support slavery or pedophilia, but have merely tried to make a point that so many otherwise intelligent people seem so unwilling to grasp: there ARE objective standards to consider when human rights come into play. They are the objective standards of the natural law invoked by the very same document that justified American Independence. If morality is merely a social dictate, then anything can ultimately become legal if enough people support it.

There is a reason that the opening statement by Senator James is absurd, and it has nothing to do with your personal opinion.

Yet, looking at it a second time, the entire debate is absurd, because it merely hinges on opinions and legal quibbling. America has worked, up until now, because our laws and viewpoints had a deeper source. We abandon the source at our peril, risking that the above discussion become a political reality...