------

Subject: The 3 major obstacles to the Logos Kingdom come on earth

(Tues, June 7, 2011)

(approx. 3875 words, 7 pp.)

(or)

(or)

(or)

We are going to start this "Kingdom come" step-by-step business at the beginning with another simple thought exercise which is very much like the "do we have minds?" thing, and, again, it is going to be one of these things that you either "see" or you do "not see," and, again, in my opinion 99 people out of 100 can "see" the issue here today in this essay by common sense unless they have been negatively influenced by someone who "cannot see" it.

Please stick with me. This is, again, very simple, but crucial steps in learning how to walk and then how to run. The ultimate goal here of this whole series of essays is to flip all the Liberal to Radical 1.) law schools, 2.) colleges and universities and 3.) seminaries, after which it will just be a mopping up exercise, in my opinion, as the expression goes, for the "Kingdom come" on earth.

The corrupted situation in American law today can, again, be seen in a very, very simple thought exercise, as simple as "seeing" that we have minds. This is almost all in Plato, and it is, I think, why it is has been said that all philosophy is a footnote or series of footnotes to Plato.

Okay let’s begin, here we go: there is a very common expression in "ordinary language" (as Wittgenstein would say) that something or some court ruling, etc. is, was, or can be a "travesty of Justice." This is a very common phrase, and we all know what it means. It means that not only was "Justice" not done, but some ruling was even something of an outrage to Justice. (I am using caps for Justice, initially at least, simply for emphasis, but later because of an overt identification with God.) However what Plato is going to argue brilliantly is that for a ruling to be a "travesty of Justice," there must be a "Justice" and a real "Justice," at that, in order for the ruling to be a travesty of it. There is in the entire history of Western philosophy no refutation of this (to my knowledge).

This is, however, a little like "the mind thing." (I told you the mind thing was going somewhere.) That is, one can either "see" Plato’s point of self-evident common sense or you "cannot see" it, and, again, I would speculate that 99 people out of 100 who have not been negatively influenced (by the blind "not seers") can "see" that a "travesty of Justice" can occur by the state or by a court, etc.

The problem here works this way: Can a judge make a bad ruling? The answer is, of course, "yes" for anybody with any common sense. But some people cannot "see" this. They (the Sophists) say back to Socrates, "If the judge and/ or court of last appeal etc. says something, then that is the way it is." De facto that is true, and it is the rendered "justice" for the parties involved, but that does not mean the judge, court or state, etc. cannot rule badly, even very badly, which in fact the Sophist cannot "see." In fact the Sophists are famous for not being able to "see" this. It is, indeed, their claim to fame, or infamy, is probably the better word. They say winning the argument or court case or the state’s decree is the end of the matter because there is supposedly no real, objective standard of Truth or Good or in this case right Justice.

The truth is it is false even ludicrous and absurd to the average person to say that a judge or jury, etc. cannot make an un-Just ruling. And when dealing with important matters of Justice it is not just silly and ridiculous to say this, but outrageous, when a "travesty" of clear to common sense Justice is being done. However, as with not being able to "see" we have "minds," so too there are some few people who really think there really is no Right or real standard of Justice to be applied by the court or the judge, and even the state, itself. The judge or the court can simply do no wrong, ultimately speaking (though they can violate some given political ideology, such as Marxism or Liberalism, etc.). Why can the court or state do no real wrong? Because there is no real "wrong" to do. And I am saying here this is a total violation of common senses for almost all people but not for the person who cannot "see" it.

In fact this idea that the court can make a "bad" ruling is very, very simple for everyone except those very few people who simply "cannot see" it. And for that person the judge or court cannot do "injustice" because there is really no "thing" Justice to do.

This person says there is no real objective standard of Good to be applied to law cases. Again, the idea is the judge cannot even in theory let alone in practice make a bad ruling, because there is no real "bad" or "Justice" in order for a ruling (or even law for the legislator) to be it. If the judge says something is "good," it is "good," and if he says it is "bad," it is "bad," and that is the end of the matter.

It is Cicero and Jefferson who carry the water for this idea of "higher moral law"

Again, in my opinion, unless someone has been negatively influenced, probably 99 people out of 100 would find this no-possible-injustice position to be ridiculous, even absurd, because if the judge can say "anything" he or she feels like, why even bother to have courts, etc., or to even speak of "Justice" or eventually in the course of history have real "Rights," etc. Who points this out? After Plato the next most famous and influential person to say this is Aristotle, but I would say the most famous and influential person in antiquity for history and for us today is Cicero.

Indeed, after Cicero the West threw out the very idea of no real Justice or Right ruling as, actually, ridiculous, to be blunt, and understandably so. The idea that there is a standard of Right which the judge is supposed to be hitting is called in philosophy "the higher moral law" (and Right Reason about it). The judge may hit it, or he or she may not, but there is a real objective, Rational standard of Justice to be applied in the true nature of things

Now fast forward from antiquity to the American Revolution. The American founders write the Declaration of Independence saying there is a real objective standard of Justice the so-called "higher moral law" or what they call "the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," and they say, in effect "You, King George, are not doing it, and we are out of here!" Britain is going to argue back that their actions were actually not un-Just enough to warrant war, but they will not argue back (the morally depraved position) that there is no real "higher moral law" to be violated!

Indeed, to my knowledge not since Cicero has any major figure (until the 18th century) argued this no real Justice position because ultimately one winds up in the self-evidently absurd position that one court ruling is ultimately or really just as Good as any other, which is obviously nonsense. So far so good, very simple. Okay folks, it is toe-stepping time.

Old King George may have been doing us bad, but he would not have argued there was no "bad" to be done. That is to say, he was not morally depraved, which by definition the person is or will become in history who argues there is no real "bad" or "injustice" or "tyranny," etc. to be done in the Nature of things. Toe stepping time, toe stepping time...

For a variety of reasons as the 19th century progressed. The leading intellectuals of the West decided there was no real "higher moral law" of the Declaration or at all for that matter. This starts slowly in America and the West, but some folks are way out in front on this as the point in their theories. This was, for example, the driving force behind Marx and Engels who said the American founders just thought they were revolting for Justice, but those were really just meaningless words. (In the 18th century the capitalist, atheist David Hume would have said the same thing.) The supposed "reason" of Justice was not really the "cause" of the American founders actions, but underlying class or self interest etc.. (I told you this was going somewhere.)

The real "reason" supposedly for the American Revolution for Marx and Engels was some unspoken class interest. The fact is everybody who does this from Cicero to Jefferson to Marx to Sartre and Rorty has the same analysis. The real higher moral law is in the realm of the abstract or mind/ mental, not in the realm of the brain/ physical and is somehow connected to God, hence Jefferson’s phrase "the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." Hence, when the atheist throws out a real God, for whatever the reason, he also loses the concepts of real abstract Good, Truth, and Right or Justice, and being able to "see" them. And both sides agree.

Marx and Engels, Sartre and Rorty...

Marx and Engels say the entire point of their theory is there is no "God" and there is no "Justice." Whatever the state says, is the way it is. The state can do no "wrong." The state gives "Rights" and takes "Rights" away as it feels like, but there are, supposedly, no actual real Rights in the Nature of things associated with real Good and with God. That is to say, there are no "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" in order for the Judge or court or old King George to make a bad ruling or un-Just ruling.

Sartre says almost word for word exactly the same thing, namely, there is no God, and there is no real Good for a court to do, or for Mother Teresa to do, or for Hitler not to do, and that is how Sartre gets to his infamous morally depraved position on Mother Teresa and Hitler, but he gets there consistently one must say, given what he can "see" and "not see" in terms of no real Good.

So, there are 2 basic views of law emerging as the 19th century ends. One is there is a "higher moral law" as the American founders thought as the basis for their Revolution and the Bill of Rights, etc., and the other view is there is no "higher moral law" and there are no real Rights in the Nature of things, rather just whatever the state or judge feels or says on any given day (or what is in accord with a given political ideology of Marxism, Liberalism, or whatever).

This is not complicated, and throughout the history of the West, even pre-Christian West so long as one held to a traditional notion of God one usually also got a real transcendent "higher moral law" or standard Justice that is actually associated with and even identified with God. And when one loses a notion of God or a traditional notion of God, one tends also to lose the reality of a "higher moral law" or of Truth, Right, and Good associated with and even identified with God. The no real "higher moral law" position is called "legal positivism," which in reality is, as we have seen, absurd to common sense.

However, by the end of the 19th century this view of "legal positivism" was becoming more and more accepted by the leading intellectuals in American law schools. Why in America of all places? America was not as Marx and Engels throwing out God and Justice altogether, but as the 19th century ended the definition of God began to change radically, but in a sense subtly, and with that change one of the attendant casualties was "the higher moral law" and the very idea of it, that is, even in theory.

The end of the 19th century was also when "higher criticism" Christianity (or today we say "Liberal Christianity") was coming into its own in the seminaries, which we will discuss at great length in a later Part of this series on "seeing" things and obstacles to the Kingdom come. Right now it is enough to say that the two forms of "legal positivism" that emerge slowly and seemingly innocuously (except with Marx and Engels and Nietzsche) are an outright atheist "legal positivism" which can "see" no real, Rational higher moral law at all, and a Liberal "legal positivism" which also asserts there is no real higher Rational moral law, but the Liberal will want to put in a substitute for that real "higher moral law," namely, an irrational amoral "love" as the only "absolute" and reality for law and religion.

For the atheist outright "the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God," the foundation of our republic, are really just flowery ultimately meaningless words on paper justifying capitalism, sexism, racism, etc. So, for Marx and Engels and the radical civil rights activist and the radical feminist the founders were pigs from the beginning, and the founding documents are a sham for power and exploitation of others, and the Constitution lives to mean virtually nothing, intellectually speaking, since it never really meant anything in the first place with its meaningless words on paper as supposed justifications for political action and law! This is Barack Obama's view in The Audacity of Hope (p.92), namely, ultimately, "in the end laws are just words on a page." In reality this is specifically, ultimately what laws are not for, say, Jefferson and Cicero and even Plato, and it is the whole of their theories no less!

Liberalism in law is a particular type of "legal positivism"

The situation for the Liberal is somewhat different than this in law and religion. In religion the idea will be the founders had a traditional Gospel message of real sin-and-salvation, and love of others. However in religion the sin-and-salvation will be dropped for the Liberal for a "love only" message or "Gospel," which must do great violation to the Bible text obviously (we will talk about this at length in future essays), but regardless this new Love-only absolute (which inevitably becomes license with no real moral Good) is carried over into law and becomes the only standard for right court rulings, supposedly. (Former President Carter argues this position.)

However, for the Liberal the founders were not all capitalist, racist, sexist "pigs’ (as the atheist political Radical usually holds) with sham language rather they were doing the best they could in a noble manner with what they had, namely, a real sin-and salvation religion and a real "higher moral law" jurisprudence, both of which the Liberal has moved beyond, supposedly, in a higher vision and in an amoral Gnostic fashion. With the birth of Christian Liberalism (as its very point) one now "sees" in a higher vision that there is no real sin or salvation in religion and correspondingly there is no real and Rational "higher moral law" in law, which had been the foundation of all Just societies going back to antiquity, as Plato saw and was shooting for in his truly nutty Republic and which Cicero also saw and almost hit trying to re-construct the actual Roman Republic. Unfortunately Cicero had almost only an audience of one (himself), and the Roman society was so thoroughly pagan as to be beyond hope, to be blunt.

But, regardless, to the point at hand,

But, regardless, to the point at hand: 2 basic "legal positivisms" (again, of no real "higher moral law") are going to emerge in the West in the 19th century with the now discarded real, Rational, transcendent "higher moral law," which the Liberal and Radical simply cannot "see" they themselves say as the very point of their own 2 legal positivism positions. Liberals and Radicals then become (with their "not seeing" the reality and Rationality of the "higher moral law") a true "elite" (by definition) above or going beyond, supposedly, the 99% of lesser common people, who think they can "see" real Justice and travesties of Justice, etc.

The "legal positivism" of the political Radical, religious atheist with no "higher moral law" whatsoever will hold the American founding documents almost in contempt and as despicable , in essence, of no more valuable than toilet paper, indeed they are worse than toilet paper, if you think about it, since they are sham documents used only for the exploitation of the proletariat, women, people of color, homosexuals, lesbians, etc.

In stark contrast, for the Liberal the founding documents are to be valued as period pieces reflecting back to a quaint time when people like the simple-minded Founders actually believed in a real "higher moral law" and a God associated with it, that is, before we "progressed" to "see" that the "higher moral law" is actually not real, and the Liberals then substituted (usually) an irrational "love only" for it and a general amoral spirituality for "God" along with an accompanying set of new positive utopian legal "human rights." However, this means, tragically in the end, the Radical atheist and the Liberal wind up in the same place of no real, Rational "higher moral law" and arguing over which theory of "legal positivism" to impose on the society, and teach in the law schools.

As an aside here and something we will look at later in detail in another essay, correspondingly, the "God" that will emerge from "higher criticism" and Liberal Christianity is not capable of doing the supernatural (or of creating the universe or whatever as He was for the American founders), indeed that was primarily the original cause of Liberalism, that is, to create a new such "God," and He is also supposedly an "absolute love" but not all righteous.  This is to say for law (for the religious Liberal), there will be no more real "higher moral law" associated with a traditional notion of a Creator God of the Founders since neither exists any longer. But to the point at hand here, this is clearly going to be a big mess (with time) in law for Justice since one’s only standard is love, compassion, tolerance and other such feelings, virtually the opposite meaning of Justice, you will note.

This no "higher moral law" "legal positivism" (of the Liberal and Radical) gets so bad that by the time Barack Obama gets to law school the debate of the day is between the Marxist Radical view of the Constitution (in effect, the sham document, worse than toilet paper where all it is is exploitative white male capitalists, etc.) and the Liberal view of a once great but now totally irrelevant historical document of the past. (Outlined also by Obama in Audacity pp. 114-118 )

And Obama, as a true intellectual and truly following and teaching the issues of the day, says, in effect, (in so many words) that he is torn between the Radical worse than toilet paper view and the Liberal once great but now irrelevant view. In my personal opinion Obama is not being truthful here. I personally think he holds to the Radical (mere words on paper) view, but it hardly matters. Why? Because both the Radical and Liberal reject outright, the traditional view of real Rights and Justice. Who would have ever guessed that we would have someone running for President, let alone getting elected, who is all wrapped up in the might be worse than toilet paper debate of the major law schools. "Oh how the mighty have fallen" and the law schools, and the nation of America!

But to be fair to President Obama, this was indeed, I think, the jurisprudence debate of the day on the Constitution, and this debate was the only thing really left on the table for him to study and to learn in virtually any law school, almost all of which by the end of the 20th century were no longer even considering if there may be a real "higher moral law" but rather only which theory of "legal positivism" to adopt when one can no longer "see" any possibility of there being a real " higher moral law."

So, I want to be very clear here...

So, I want to be very clear here. I do not think Barack Obama is the embodiment of "evil" or some such thing, as some people try to claim in his being a follower of Lucifer Alinsky and all that business. Rather, I think Obama is sitting squarely in the middle of the corrupted "legal positivist" 1% (or less) ruling elite, who "cannot see" there can be a real (Platonic or metaphysical) travesty of real Justice intellectually, practically, metaphysically or ontologically, or at least he is pretending to be in the middle on this in his two books, and he is telling the "uneducated" 99% of the common people masses what the intellectual debates are among the ruling elite, in order to show everybody how smart he is.

The real people in the know and power players in the ruling 1% (or less) elite are debating the 2 main views of the Constitution, namely, the Marxist or Black Liberation Theology view of worse than toilet paper since it was a no-good evil in the first place (to exploit poor colored peoples, etc.) and the Liberal view of once great but has "lived" to die, so to speak, and now means an irrational "love-only," if only you can "see" it. However both of these views of the corrupted "legal positivist" ruling 1% (or less) elite are nuts to common sense and to presumably 99% of people who have not been indoctrinated into the nonsense of either view! But I, myself, this writer, have also, as Obama, been to the highly corrupted "elite" schools. Been there, done that, and have some story to tell myself.  So, join us next time Tuesday, June 14, 2011 for that story in Part II-B: On "Legal Positivism," which will be something of my own personal God and Man at Yale, you might say. You don't want to miss this one, trust me...

====================================