I am not a psychiatrist nor a lawyer. This information is a matter of informed opinion. In other words, can't sue me 'cause I'm right. I’ve already disclaimed.
Did you ever wonder why schools today make such an effort to teach about "civil rights" and "civil liberties?" Ever wonder why they only use the word "natural" in conjunction with evolution?
It might be useful to point out, at this juncture, that if you consider "natural selection" as one of the natural laws, then you must oppose the "Endangered species acts." Natural selection is based on "survival of the fittest," after all. When the spotted owl starts packing an AK, I'll listen. Until then I have the right to cut the dang tree down on my property if I want.
This article cannot possibly contain a full course in natural law. Greek and Roman philosophers had been debating natural law in various forms since they thought, therefore they were. Natural law was conceptualized into text by a brilliant Roman politician and writer by the name of Marcus Tullius Cicero. His work was read and influenced the thinking of the likes of John Locke and our founding fathers.
Of natural law, Cicero writes, “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.”
Remember that this is a Roman speaking about God. A single God. Cicero lived during the time of Julius Caesar, so this is many years before Jesus was born, thus there were no Christians to consult. I have not studied deeply enough, as yet, to decide if he was referring to the God of the Holy Bible or if he was implying that in his own mind he decided that there was only one God. It is possible that he had contact with Israelites since they had been spreading out of the Holy Land. The point is that he attributes natural law to one master and ruler and one God. I will also point out that Cicero was a master orator and writer. He is credited with turning the Latin language into a poetic language. He was a very intelligent man and I believe that he probably read the Israelite texts and may have been influenced by that God.
So what did he mean by that statement above? What does he mean by "...summons to duty by its commands,...?" What possible punishment could there be for attempting to repeal parts of it?
Here is an example that you can share with your city council or county board of supervisors or whatever. Tell them that you will build a plexiglass enclosure of a size which will allow them to have a chair, television, fridge, etc. They must stay in that glass enclosure in full view of the public. You will provide plenty of water, juice, tea, coffee or whatever and plenty of food. They, however, must also agree to a slowly dripping faucet. For your part, you will agree to all terms of the United Nations Agenda 21 items on one condition.
They must refuse to evacuate themselves. They cannot go to the bathroom. Not even a little piddle in the pants.
While there are some of them that may try, we know the result. They will either damage themselves internally, start banging at the enclosure to get out, or simply soil themselves.
Now this may seem like a ridiculous example of natural law, but it is the most basic a human can understand. Call it the "When you gotta go" theory. The point is that when your body "summons to duty by its commands," you go. When you are hungry, you eat.
This example contains all of the elements of natural law. You may decide to wait on the "call of nature" yourself, at times. Perhaps you are driving and will wait until the next rest stop. As it draws closer, you become more determined and perhaps that causes your foot to depress the accelator just a bit more. You get to the rest stop and find it closed and now you get angry. The next stop may be fifty miles away. Can you wait another hour? Or do you pull over and take a chance that some badge heavy cop is going to give you a ticket for peeing on the highway or even arrest you for indecent exposure. Neither course of action is valid under natural law.
You know you have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is written into your Constitution. (If you are getting ready to type that is the Declaration of Independence, then please do not bother. It just means that you need to study the Constitution). That statement is only an expression of common sense already instilled into you by God. You were born with a survival instinct and that is why you know that it is all right to kill someone who with malice aforethought is trying to injure or kill you. There are variations, of course. If someone comes on your property with a rifle he might be a stray hunter unless you have a fence delineation around your property. If someone is picking an apple from your tree, he might just be hungry. Feed him. This also does not mean killing to protect your illegal activities.
The natural extension of Natural Law is natural rights. That is, there are certain things that you know instinctively that you have a right to do and things that you do not. For example, you may have a right to get drunk, but you do not have a right to drive drunk. You have a right to personal property. The Bible refers to this in terms such as eating from your own fig tree or drinking from your own cistern. Incidently that also gives you the natural right to collect water that God causes to fall on your land. However your rights end where mine begin. Here are some examples.
1. You can collect water to your needs, but you cannot stop water from flowing onto my land. You cannot dump oils and poisons in the stream on your property if it poisons property downstream.
2. You have a right to listen to whatever you want to loud enough so that I do not have to hear it. You have a First Amendment right to speak, but no First Amendment right to make me listen. You have no right to disturb the peace of another from your home, car, business or bar.
3. You have a right to come and ask me for a few bucks, but you have no right to take it. No government has a right to take my property of any kind to give to another. They have claimed the right to take property for the purposes of building post roads and Post Offices and their specifically allowed properties in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution. To Whit: Washington D.C. (and they can have it), forts, aresenals, dock-Yards and other needful buildings. That is it. Period. No national forests or parks.
4. You do not have a right to murder. That is to take another life in jealousy, to take their property, etc. You are not allowed to lie in wait to kill someone. However you DO have a natural right to kill that person who is lying in wait for you no matter who it is or who he works for. Unless, of course, you know you are doing it to protect your illegal activity.
5. You do not have a right to rape a girl. If you rape five to ten year olds like Muslims, there should be something clinically done to your private parts. I say clinically because I would oppose any nice, clean surgical techniques being involved. This is, of course, personal opinion.
I could go on, but I believe you catch the basic point I am striving for.
So why the emphasis on "Civil Rights" and none on natural rights?
Civil rights is a term the grew popular out of the sixties and sounds cool and right. Actually the term goes much further back. The difference between the definitions is that the government attempts to incorporate all of your rights under the banner of Civil rights. We will see why they stopped separating the natural and a civil.
In Chapter II of The Government Class Book by Andrew W. Young, he defines Civil rights as:
In other words, what the government giveth, the government can taketh away simply by changing a statute. If you are a home owner you might be aware of this by the institution of Agenda 21 items into your county or city. You may have been told that you now have to move this-or-that or plant this kind of tree by Wednesday or face losing your private property; a concept abhorrent to the founding fathers and natural law.
What does Young have to say about natural rights?
Natural rights have to actually be trained out of you. Thus the purpose of public indoctrination that we call education. Programs like “Character Matters” and nonsense from the Department of Education are designed to make children dependent on the government. They are designed to make your kids “tell on you.”
As Vlad the Ruskie put it: “Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.” As for the push for evolution and the work of the Anti-American Communist Lawyers Union: “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism,” he wrote.
That being said I do know of teachers in my area that know what they are teaching is crap. One teacher I know even expressed the opinion that global warming was a scam. In class! I have no doubt that there are good teachers across the country who go beyond the text books and explain the truth to the kids. Some may even very carefully mention God.
This is an entirely new thought I just had on natural law. Something that I just had while writing this article. I wonder if natural rights can be indoctrinated out after all. Certainly there are kids who will become cowards and depend on the government at their peril. Particularly if their parents are of the same ilk. We never had school shootings when natural law, God and rights were taught in school. I was one of those kids you used to pick on at school, by the way. Don’t try it now. And the government at least made the appearance of protecting our rights which is their duty. We know that the Columbine shooting was evoked at least in part because of the teaching of evolution. I wonder if some of these kids---including the mass shootings by young people outside of schools---are not caused by the confusion between their instinctive God-given natural law and the indoctrination that government is God? I'll bet there will not be a government-funded study on that.