What Texas Can do About SCOTUS and Abortion

What Texas Can do About SCOTUS and Abortion

By

James Scott Trimm

Breaking News:  This morning SCOTUS overturned large portions of Texas' anti-abortion omnibus law (HB 2).  Texas Right to Life reports this morning:

The Supreme Court of the United States has denied Texas the right to protect women by enforcing crucial health and safety standards on the abortion industry.

The majority 5-3 ruling strikes down two provisions of House Bill 2, the Pro-Life Omnibus Bill of the 2013 Legislative Session, which require abortion mills to operate as Ambulatory Surgical Centers and which require abortionists to possess hospital admitting privileges within a 30-mile radius of the abortion mill before committing abortions.

The provision in the law which protects preborn children -- who science shows feel pain at 20 weeks -- was not challenged and continues to save lives in Texas.

This ruling comes, despite the fact that no branch of the federal government has delegated power under the US Constitution, over the regulation of safety of medical procedures or facilities, or over the licensing of medical personal or facilities.  Therefore, under the tenth amendment these powers are retained by the states.

The supposed "right to an abortion" is not found in the US Constitution and is an invention of SCOTUS.  The right to life, however, is guaranteed by the ninth amendment which must certainly encompass the the inalienable rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" referenced in the Declaration of Independence.  And the 14th amendment which states that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

It is time for Texas for Texas to demand our Tenth Amendment rights!

The new Texas State Republican Platform for 2016 boldly proclaims concerning abortion:

"Abolish Abortion- We call upon the Texas Legislature to enact legislation stopping the murder of unborn children; and to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life."

But how can the Texas Legislature enact legislation abolishing abortion in Texas?  What about Roe v. Wade?  Hasn’t the US Supreme Court ruled that there is a Constitutional right to an abortion?  What about today's ruling?

Well as the platform says, there is a way for Texas to “to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life.”  That way involves reclaiming our Texas Sovereignty, as the Platform elsewhere states:

State Sovereignty- Pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, the federal government has impaired our right of local self-government.  Therefore, federally mandated legislation, which infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas, should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified. Regulation of Commerce in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has exceeded the original intent. All attempts by the federal judiciary to rule in areas not expressly enumerated by the Untied States Constitution should be likewise nullified. Any federal enforcement activities that do occur in Texas should be conducted under the authority of the county sheriff.

But how can we actually accomplish this?  How can the State of Texas nullify a federal court ruling from the US Supreme Court?  The answer is the Texas Sovereignty Act!

The Supreme Court has become the final interpreter of the Constitution for one simple reason: because they say they are.  The Supreme Court usurped this authority, claiming it for itself in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.  Nowhere does the Constitution assign this role to the Supreme Court, they simply have it because they say they do.

The framers stated that the US Constitution is a compact between the member states, and that as such, each state has equal standing in determining for itself the meaning of the Constitution.  The tenth amendment states that the states and the people retain all powers not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution did the states delegate to any branch of the federal government the power to be the ultimate and final interpreter of the Constitution.  The Supremacy Clause never mentions the Supreme court, but appears to indicate that state judges would make these judgments.(You can read more about the basis for the Texas Sovereignty Act by clicking here)

Surely any law our state passes that reclaims its sovereignty will be declared unconstitutional by the federal government, since they have developed their own precedence on the issue.  This has been called the Goliad approach to sovereignty.  You surrender to the authority you were fighting, ask for mercy and are slaughtered in return.

We must simply pass the Texas Sovereignty Act, that, as a matter of enforceable and implemented law, Texas determines for itself whether or not our laws are Constitutional.

This means the federal courts will also have no power to find the Texas Sovereignty Act itself unconstitutional, because the law itself takes that decision out of their hands and places it in those of our state.

This is the only true path to Texas sovereignty.  Any effort that leaves the matter ultimately in the hands of federal courts will fail, because they will simply declare it unconstitutional (though their own usurped power to do so is itself unconstitutional).

Yes we can nullify Roe v. Wade in Texas!  We must urge Texas Legislature to pass this binding legislation claiming and enacting the right of our state to judge for itself whether a state law is unconstitutional, or whether a federal law, policy, action or ruling is unauthorized or undelegated by the U.S. Constitution.

This is how we can finally end abortion in Texas!  Remember Goliad!

Could a TEXIT follow BREXIT?

Could a TEXIT follow BREXIT?
By
James Scott Trimm

Yesterday Britain voted to exit the European Union.  There is now talk that Texas should hold a similar referendum on leaving or remaining in the union known as the United States of America.

Although I currently advocate that Texas truly claim its sovereignty by passing the Texas Sovereignty Act (click here for my article on the Texas Sovereignty Act) my purpose here is simply to demonstrate that Texas does in fact have the right to secede.  

In 1869 the Supreme Court Ruled in the wake of the Civil War:

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
(Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700)

and:

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."
(Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700)

Of course the court's conflict of interest is obvious.  In fact the court's opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln.  But is this true?  Is the United States the Hotel California?

How Did the Supreme Court Become Final Interpreter

The Supreme Court has become the final interpreter of the Constitution for one simple reason: because they say they are.  The Supreme Court usurped this authority, claiming it for itself in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison.  Nowhere does the Constitution assign this role to the Supreme Court, they simply have it because they say they do,


The Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
(Article 6; Clause 2)

Note that it is the Constitution, not the federal government that is the “supreme law of the land”.  The Constitution is not the same thing as the federal government.  The Constitution is the instrument that creates and restrains the federal government, it is not the federal government itself.

The Constitution is also not the same thing as the Supreme Court.  And in fact the Supreme Court is not even mentioned in the Supremacy Clause. 

Thomas Jefferson

To the contrary Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“…this [federal] government, created by this compact [the Constitution], was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)

 James Madison

And James Madison wrote:

"…the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them."
(James Madison; Virginia Resolution of 1798)

The Constitution is a compact between a given state, and the other states in the Union. Just as when two foreign powers, for example France and Great Britain enter into a compact, each party has a right to determine for itself its own understanding of the terms of the compact. Likewise each state maintains the right to determine for itself its own understanding of meaning of the terms of the Constitution. This does not conflict with the Supremacy Clause because it is the Constitution (but not the Federal Government ) which is the Supreme Law of the land.

Not only does the Constitution not mention the US Supreme Court in the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution indicates that it is State judges who are expected to determine if a state law is constitutional saying “…and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”


The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This means that the federal government (the Supreme Court included) does not have any power that the states have not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.  No where in the Constitution do the states delegate to the Federal Government the power to determine for themselves whether or not they deem a state law to be Constitutional, or to determine for itself what it understands the Constitution to mean.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party;…”
(Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolution 1798)


Unenumerated Rights

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But do these unenumerated Rights include the rights of the people of a state to secede from the Union?  The answer is very clearly yes.


The Right to Secede is Unalienable

The founding document of the United States of America is not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.  In this founding document we read:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These “unalienable” rights were not  granted by secular governments nor are they gifts from them, they were endowed  upon us by our Creator and secular Governments may only respect these rights, or infringe  upon them.

But do these unalienable rights include a right to secede?  The Declaration of Independence also states:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....”

Now it is clear that the Declaration of Independence recognizes the right of “one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station” of “separation” is one of the “unalienable rights” with which mankind are “endowed by their Creator” and thus they are entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”.

The Declaration of Independence Goes on to say:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Again the Declaration of Independence claims the origin of the right to :

“…publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…”

Is derived from “the Supreme Judge of the world”  while the authority to do so is derived from “the good People of these Colonies”.


The States Retain the Right to Secede

Some have argued that there is no provision in the Constitution allowing a State to secede.  However this is backwards thinking.  The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The issue then is not, does the Constitution include a provision allowing a state to secede, but does it include a provision prohibiting a state from seceding (even if it did, this would not strip a state of its right to secede, since this right is unalienable).  The fact is that since the Constitution does not specifically prohibit a state from seceding, states reserve the unalienable right to secede.


Consent of the Governed

As we stated earlier the Declaration of Independence claims that the right to secede is derived from “The Supreme Judge of the world” while the authority to do so is derived from “the good People of these Colonies”.

We also read in the Declaration of Independence:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Article 7 of the US Constitution says “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present”.

The states cannot be forced to participate in the Union against their consent, and without that consent, it has no “just powers”.

If at any time, a state, or the people of a state, cease to “consent” to be governed by the Federal Government, then the Federal Government no longer has any “just powers” to govern them.


The US Recognized Texas Right to Secede from Mexico

From 1821 to 1836 Texas was part of Mexico, but in 1836 the Republic of Texas seceded from Mexico.

On March 3, 1837, US President Andrew Jackson appointed Alcée La Branche as American “chargé d'affaires” to the Republic of Texas, thus officially recognizing the independence of the Republic of Texas and therefore recognizing its right to secede from Mexico.

On February 28, 1845, the US Congress passed a bill that would authorize the United States to annex the Republic of Texas.  This act also demonstrated that the United States recognized the right of Texas to Secede from Mexico in 1836.

If there is no unalienable right of secession, then the USA would be obligated to turn Texas back over to Mexico to be reannexed into that country.

The US Recognizes its own right to Secede from Great Britain

We have already discussed the Declaration of Independence.  It scarcely bears mentioning here that the United States maintains and recognizes the right of the Thirteen Colonies to Secede from Great Britain in the first place, otherwise the United States itself would have no right to exist, and should be re-annexed into Great Britain.


The Intent of the Founders

In interpreting the Constitution, one very important factor is that of the intent of the founders.  Of course it is impossible to believe that the founders understood the Constitution in a way that would conflict with the Declaration of Independence, as the “founders” in broad terms, composed and signed both documents.

In fact the Declaration of Independence was composed by Thomas Jefferson.  

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson addressed the issue in a letter to William B. Giles on Dec. 26, 1825 marked “not intended for the public eye,” Jefferson wrote that states:

“…should separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers.  Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.”

Clearly the founders did not understand the Constitution as prohibiting the States from exercising their unalienable right of secession.  

The Civil War

The so-called “Civil War” opens a protracted discussion into numerous unconstitutional acts which took place in this dark time of American History.  This is far to protracted of a discussion for this short paper (perhaps some day I will write more extensively on this topic), suffice it to say that no “war” was ever declared by congress, and the so-called “Civil War” was an Executive action which ultimately resulted in the forced annexation of the Southern States.  As the Constitution lays out exactly how a state may be annexed, and it cannot be by force, this was the unconstitutional outcome of an unconstitutional Executive action.  (I should state here my absolute disdain for the institution of slavery, the relation of which to the so-called Civil War has been greatly misunderstood).


The Texas State Constitution

Most importantly the Texas State Constitution states that "the perpetuity of the Union" we have with the United States depends "upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States", that "All political power is inherent in the people" who "...have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." 


FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE.  Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
(Article 1 Section 1)

INHERENT  POLITICAL  POWER;  REPUBLICAN  FORM  OF GOVERNMENT.  All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.  The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
(Article 1 Section 2)

In other words the right to secede was written into our new State Constitution, and we rejoined the union with a contingency that we could legally secede in the future!


Conclusion

States of the United States, and the State of Texas in particular, have an unalienable right to secede granted by the Creator and recognized explicitly in the Declaration of Independence, and implicitly in the Constitution and clearly was the understanding of the Founders.  The right of secession has been repeatedly recognized by the United States in its own secession from Britain, and in its own recognition of Texas right to secede from Mexico.  The right to secede is inalienable and cannot be given up or taken way, and is stated in our state constitution.

A Time for Courage

A Time for Courage
By
James Scott Trimm

I know that many of you have lost hope. Our society is moving in the wrong direction and it seems like now more than ever it is on an irreversible course.

While some talk about the federal government "making America great again," it was never the federal government that made America great in the first place, it was something else entirely. I am writing you to tell you that there is hope. That hope is not in our governments, it is in our Creator. Our hope has never been in earthly men, though we are blessed when we have leaders that are guided by the principles of prudence, righteousness, courage and temperance. Restoring our nation need not have anything to do with politics.

I am talking about restoring the values of "prudence, righteousness, courage and temperance" which are the "forms of Wisdom" (4Macc. 1:17-18).

These values are the Judao-Christian values ... we as a nation have drifted away from those values that can restore the nation to honor.

Now is a time for courage and hope. You see true hope does not come from politicians, political parties or government... it comes from courage, and courage comes from trusting faithfulness.

Our forefathers had faith, courage and hope when they first came to this New World. And facing perilous times, they stopped and took stock of what blessings they had and gave thanks to the Creator for his blessings. My cousin once mentioned the blessings of having grown up in a godly nation, and it reminded me of extended family gatherings as a child with our huge extended family at my grandparents. I remember the generation before us, my late parents, my aunts and uncles and grandparents... they had the courage to get this nation through the Great Depression and through WWII and we too must have courage, faith and hope, as they did.

The Maccabees suffered greatly under an oppressive government, yet we are told that they faced this tribulation with "prudence, righteousness, courage and temperance" (4Maccabees 1:17-18).

There is an inspiring account about George Washington in relation to the Maccabees.  For centuries, the lights of the Hanukkah menorah have inspired hope and courage. They may have also been responsible for inspiring then-General George Washington to forge on when everything looked bleak when his cold and hungry Continental Army camped at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777/8.  The story is told that Washington was walking among his troops when he saw one soldier sitting apart from the others, huddled over what looked like two tiny flames.  Washington approached the soldier and asked him what he was doing. The soldier explained that he was a Jew and he had lit the candles to celebrate Hanukkah, the festival commemorating the miraculous victory of his people so many centuries ago over the tyranny of a much better equipped and more powerful enemy who had sought to deny them their freedom. The soldier then expressed his confidence that just as, with the help of God, the Jews of ancient times were ultimately victorious, so too would they would be victorious in their just cause for freedom. Washington thanked the soldier and walked back to where the rest of the troops camped, warmed by the inspiration of those little flames and the knowledge that miracles are possible.

Friends, this is not a time for defeatism. This is a time when the world needs faith, courage and hope more than ever!  The true restoration of our nation will be in restoring our values.  So gather around with your families, give thanks to our Creator and have faith, courage and hope, in spite of politics.   And like our forefathers... believe in miracles.  We and only we can make America great again.

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

By

James Scott Trimm

The fact is that Islam is not a religion of peace.  Islam was born out of war and bloodshed.  Muhammed ordered the execution of many of his enemies, and there are passages in the Quran that speak of killing the infidels. While the words ISLAM and MUSLIM in Arabic come from the same root as SALAM (“peace”) the words indicate the peace that comes from conquest and submission to it.

 Radical Islam is definitely something we must be worried about, and moderate Islam is almost a myth.  Most “moderate” Muslims support Sharia law for the countries in which they live and the creation of a new Caliphate.  Radicals want to create a new Caliphate and most moderates want Islam and Sharia law to one day encompass all mankind.  So while a radical Muslim wants to kill infidels, most moderates want the infidels to be killed in accordance with Sharia law.  As a rule a radical Muslim wants to kill you, and a moderate Muslim wants to see you killed.

The best test as to whether a moderate Muslim is truly peaceful is the question on the existence of Israel.  Radical Muslims want to wipe out Israel.  Most moderate Muslims have a strong aversion to Israel and “Zionism”.  Lets be clear, Israel exists in the here and now, and has existed for more than half a century, Zionism today simply means supporting Israel’s right to continue to exist.  If you do not support Israel’s right to exist, it means you want to see Israel wiped off the map.  So radical Muslims want to wipe Israel off the map and most moderate Muslims want to see them succeed.

This was very clear at the 2012 DNC convention.  Support for recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel (which it presently is) had been removed from the party platform, by the influence of Muslims and their allies in the DNC.  This was conspicuous and a floor vote was quickly called to reverse this and place it back in the platform, where it had been for many years.  The result of the floor vote sounded like a no to most of us, but after it was recalled twice, it was declared a “yes” vote over the boos of Muslim delegates, some of whom were pictured in the broadcast showing their displeasure.  

That being said, there is a very, very, small group of pro-Israel “Zionist” Muslims.  But they are in extremely small numbers and live in fear of their lives, threatened by the vast majority.

Since it is claimed that Jerusalem is a holy site for Islam, many are surprised that the truth is that the word “Jerusalem” never appears in the Quran.  So why is this site "holy" to Muslims... what the Quran does say will surprise you... it will even surprise many Muslims.

Many people have been led to believe that Jerusalem is equally important to both Judaism and Islam. This is actually not the case. The Temple Mount is the central holy location in Judaism.  The central holy location for Islam is the Ka'aba Shrine at Mecca. So why is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem holy to Islam? This location is deemed as holy in Islam because Mohamed is believed by Muslims to have been transported there in a vision. This vision is recorded in Surah 17 of the Quran. However if most Muslim's really studied the Quran they would understand what Surah 17 actually teaches about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Ayeh 8 in Surah 17 (Bani Israil) is the Quran's prescription for the Jewish return to the land of Israel and the building of the Third Temple (given the first and 2nd Temples referred to in verses 1 to 7 of Surah 17) on the Temple Mount where al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock are.

The Quran claims that when Mohamed was taken to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (the word "Jerusalem" does not even actually appear), he saw a Third Temple actually standing there. He saw this the Quran says in ayeh 1 because Allah was showing him his "signs.":

Glorified be He Who carried His servant [Mohamed] by night

from the Inviolable Temple [in Mecca]

to the far distant Temple [Jerusalem]

the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed,

that We might show him [Mohamed] Our signs!

Behold, He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer.

Ayeh 5 speaks of the Babylonian captivity and the destruction of the First Temple:

So when the time for the first of the two [Temples] came,

We roused against you slaves of Ours of great might

who ravaged (your) country,

and it was a threat performed.

Ayeh 6 speaks of the return from the Babylonian captivity and the building of the Second Temple:

Then We gave you once again your turn against them,

and We aided you with wealth and children

and made you more in solidarity.

Ayeh 7 speaks of the destruction of the Second Temple:

(Saying): If you do good, you do good for your own souls,

and if you do evil, it is for them (likewise).

So when the time for the second (of the judgments) came

(We roused against you others of Our slaves) to ravage you,

and to enter the Temple even as they entered it the first time,

and to lay waste all that they conquered with an utter wasting.

Ayeh 8 then begins:

"It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you..."

hinting at a further return to the land and the building of a third Temple, a Temple which the Quran says Mohamed saw as one of Allah's signs on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Then near the end of Surah 17 we read:

And We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel after him [Moses]:

Dwell in the land;

And when the promise of the hereafter comes to pass

We [Allah] shall bring you [Children of Israel] as a crowd

gathered out of various nations.

(Quran Surah 17:104)

Thus the Quran actually says that the Jewish return to the land and the building of the Third Temple should be seen by the Islamic world as a prophetic sign of Allah's sovereign mercy upon the Children of Israel and that Allah has promised the Children of Israel that they will be regathered from the nations to dwell in the land! Moreover the Quran teaches that the very reason this location is "blessed" is because the building of a third Temple there will be a "sign" that Allah has had mercy on the Children of Israel and gathered them out of various nations to dwell in the land!

But the fact is that very few Muslims actually believe this.  There are a tiny minority of Muslims that actually uphold this belief and they live in constant fear for their lives.

These very rare Muslims support and understand “jihad” as the struggle against evil in everyday life (similar to what Christians call “spiritual warfare”).  They see directives in the Quran to “kill the infidels” as having no modern application, just as many Jews and Christians see biblical directives to kill Sabbath breakers or Amalakites as having no modern application. 

But these are not the average “moderate” Muslims, these are very rare oppressed Muslims.  They may well make up less that 1% of Muslims.

For the most part, a radical Muslim wants to kill you, and a so-called "moderate" Muslim wants him to succeed.

However, this does not mean that we should trash the Constitution. Some have proposed that we take draconian and unconstitutional steps in opposition to radical Islam.  But as Benjamin Franklin said:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, 
to purchase a little temporary Safety, 
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Natural Law and Traditional Marriage

Natural Law and Traditional Marriage

By

James Scott Trimm

Recently I wrote a blog about how traditional marriage can be restored in Texas.  This drew some disagreement from some of my Libertarian friends, who viewed this as a violation of freedom of religion.  However traditional marriage is not rooted merely in religion, but in natural law.

Plato on Natural Law

In his foundational work on politicical theory, "The Republic", Plato maintains that the ideal community is, "...a city which would be established in accordance with nature." (The Republic, 428e9). What did Plato mean by this? Plato maintained that we live in an orderly universe (Gorgias 508a) and that the basis of this orderly universe or nature are the "forms" the foundation of which he taight was the Form of the Good, which he describes as "the brightest region of Being".(Republic, 518b–d]) This Form of the Good, according to Plato, is the cause of all things and when it is seen it leads a person to act wisely.(Republic, 540a, 517b–d) In his work, "The Symposium", he closely identifies "Good" with the "Beautiful".(Symposium, 205e–6a.) Also in the Symposium, Plato describes how the experience of the Beautiful by Socrates enables him to resist the temptations of wealth and sex. (Symposium, 211d–e).

Philo of Alexandria on Natural Law

The first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria taught the concept of Natural Law.  Philo taught that the universe is an effect that must have a cause, i.e. a Creator, and that this Creator has a preference for order as opposed to chaos, as expressed by the order of the universe itself.  Philo taught that implicit to the order of the universe.

(1) Of other lawgivers, some have set forth what they considered to be just and reasonable, in a naked and unadorned manner, while others, investing their ideas with an abundance of amplification, have sought to bewilder the people, by burying the truth under a heap of fabulous inventions. (2) But Moses, rejecting both of these methods, the one as inconsiderate, careless, and unphilosophical, and the other as mendacious and full of trickery, made the beginning of his laws entirely beautiful, and in all respects admirable, neither at once declaring what ought to be done or the contrary, nor (since it was necessary to mould beforehand the dispositions of those who were to use his laws) inventing fables himself or adopting those which had been invented by others. (3) And his exordium, as I have already said, is most admirable; embracing the creation of the world, under the idea that the law corresponds to the world and the world to the law, and that a man who is obedient to the law, being, by so doing, a citizen of the world, arranges his actions with reference to the intention of nature, in harmony with which the whole universal world is regulated. (4) Accordingly no one, whether poet or historian, could ever give expression in an adequate manner to the beauty of his ideas respecting the creation of the world; for they surpass all the power of language, and amaze our hearing, being too great and venerable to be adapted to the sense of any created being.

(On Creation 1-4)

Elsewhere Philo writes:

…for he [Moses] was not like any ordinary compiler of history, studying to leave behind him records of ancient transactions as memorials to future ages for the mere sake of affording pleasure without any advantage; but he traced back the most ancient events from the beginning of the world, commencing with the creation of the universe, in order to make known two most necessary principles. First, that the same being was the father and creator of the world, and likewise the lawgiver of truth; secondly, that the man who adhered to these laws, and clung closely to a connection with and obedience to nature, would live in a manner corresponding to the arrangement of the universe with a perfect harmony and union, between his words and his actions and between his actions and his words.

(On the Life of Moses 2, 48)

To Philo Natural Law is revealed in the very order of the universe, which is the Creator’s work, and thus reveals the will of the Creator. 

Paul on Natural Law

In his letter to the Romans, Paul also addresses this concept that Natural Law is revealed in the very order of the universe, which is the Creator’s work, and thus reveals the will of the Creator. 

[17] For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

[24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

[25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

[27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

(Romans 1:17-32 KJV)

And after a few other words he says:

[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

(Romans 2:13-16 KJV)

John Locke on Natural Law

John Locke, whose political philosophy inspired the founders said that if a ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one.

But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Thomas Jefferson on Natural Law:

Jefferson was clearly influenced by Locke when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Our nation was thus founded on natural law.

Natural Law and Freedom of Religion

John Locke was an early advocate of the freedom of religion.  Writing is his Letters Concerning Toleration he formulated a classic reasoning for freedom of religion based on three points: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity

However Locke did not see this freedom of religion as being in conflict with natural law.  And this is because he taught that “reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it” and as Thomas Jefferson put it, Natural Law is “self evident” and as Paul said “being understood by the things that are made”.

While religion is subjective, “Natural Law” is objective, we can each, independently see the nature of the universe and the intent of the creator which is revealed by it. 

Natural Law and Traditional Marriage

This brings us to the controversial question of gay marriage.  The State of Texas (my state) has a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

This definition of marriage is based not on religion but on natural law.  It is based entirely on reproductive biology.  Marriage is a union is generally consummated by the reproductive act.  For this reason we call sexual intercourse "the marital act" and a marriage can be annulled in Texas if either spouse is permanently incapable of engaging in the reproductive act.

Homosexuals are not interested in entering a union between one man and one woman generally consummated by the reproductive act, does not mean that they are victims of discrimination.  Likewise if I am not interested in fighting fires, I cannot demand to be recognized as a fireman and require that the definition of “fireman” be altered to include me.  (By the way this has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with natural law and reproductive biology.)  Homosexuals cannot perform the reproductive act because, as a matter of natural law, their parts don’t fit together for that act.

Traditional marriage is not an issue of freedom of religion, it is instead rooted in natural law.

Traditional Marriage can be restored in Texas, here is how <click here>.