Law School, Christianity, and The Pervasiveness of Relativism
Here’s an interesting blog. My friend Andrew (who goes by the name Zenas - Titus 3:13), is a Reformed cat that attends a liberal law school. Today he started a blog and came out of the gate firing. In his first article, Zenas writes about an experience with a fellow law school student wherein the existence of truth, that is, objective truth, is something that the law student is unsure of. Zenas writes:
“I was sitting in class earlier this semester and one of my classmates, a very nice, affable fellow, begins to answer a question with, “Well, if truth exists…” One might think I’m getting excited over nothing, but consider what he’s saying, and also consider the position he’s in…”
He goes on to state that he’s willing to wager that this particular student, the vast majority in the classroom, and many across this nation and the western world, is unsure of objective truth. Here’s a teaser from Zenas’ new blog: Wise Fools.
What is law? Simply, it is the authority of a sovereign manifested over inferior subjects. If there is no objective truth, then the reason for that power being manifested is merely due to either assent or assertion of superior power. All we are, or all we will be, as attorneys, are tools of enforcement for a system of rules that really have no reason to be in existence in the first place. After all, they can’t be true, and they can’t be right.
This can be examined in another layer as well; why do we punish murderers? Naturalistically speaking, if we examine a serial killer through Darwinistic lenses, the serial killer is a genetic abnormality. There is nothing wrong with him at all; he is only a statistical anomaly. Hitler was not wrong, and neither was he right, he was merely statistically in the minority.
What does this have to do with anything? Well, I have trouble imagining a lawyer that doesn’t have a basis for saying murder is wrong.
Looks like it’s going to be fun to read! The rest can be found at: http://foolish-wisdom.blogspot.com/
5 Comments, Comment or Ping
Agilius
O - my - gosh! Someone *else* is a wack job, too!
This is so obvious, and the law is such an integral part of any civilized society, that it blows my mind how willing - in America, no less - people are to accept a legal system based *first-and-foremost* on majority rule, rather than insisting that logic and morality be the judge of the majority. America was born from the *judgement* that someone was abusing his authority - that there is a right and wrong way to rule a nation - be it in a Republic, or a Kingdom (and I’m talking about a kingdom with a real king and with real authority).
It is hypocritical of America to claim there is no truth or morality.
Feb 18th, 2008
agogley
Agilius - George Washington said this:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle
Feb 19th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Looks like my buddy Zenas has received his baptism by fire!
http://foolish-wisdom.blogspot.com/2008/02/pervasiveness-of-relativism.html
Jump to the comments.
Feb 21st, 2008
agogley
Interesting…I’m presently reading Schaeffer’s How should we then Live. The relationship between law and truth is discussed thoroughly in a historical context.
Feb 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
This is a good type of post. We should continue this.
People like John Warwick Montgomery has always been into Law School type Christianity. I was asked to spend time with him in Strausburg, France. I wanted to actually learn from the evidential god-father of Chrisitan Law. Dr. Wayne House really looked up to him, and it didn’t work out for whatever reason.
Dr. Morey doesn’t adhere to the concepts behind “proof”, and “persuasion” as related by Black’s Dictionary of Law. I personally agree with him but only use it when the situation arises to “answer a fool according to his folly.” (Proverbs 26).
Are there any lawyers on this blog?
Jean Cauvin
Apr 27th, 2008
Reply to “Law School, Christianity, and The Pervasiveness of Relativism”