Law

Law... The etymology of the word goes back to "layer, stroke, something layed down, or fixed." It is probably one of the most defining words of our generation, maybe of any generation. Who gets to define Law. Does each individual get to define law for himself? Does each society get to define law? What was once law in the United States is now considered offensive and politically incorrect. Sodomy laws were in many, if not all early states, and some have only been recently repealed. Why do these laws change? Not only do laws change according to different generations, but they change across cultures. Are we evolving when our laws change?

Martin Luther King peacefully demonstrated against racism. At one time in our history there were laws which were clearly racist. MLK was a reformer. Reformers proclaim the injustice of certain laws. But to do so, they must appeal to a higher law. The reformers who campaigned for a repeal of sodomy laws appealed to the "should" and "ought" of some other authority. What was that authority? Why "should" we remove sodomy laws? Why "should" we institute sodomy laws?

Whether you are for or against certain laws, you will always have to appeal to some sort of authority. What is your source of authority? It must either be

1. Personal - "I feel..." or "I believe..."
2. Society (our culture, or contemporary setting says...). This really amounts to: We have more votes, therefore it is right. The fallacy can easily be seen when we ask: "What if homophobes have more votes and make a law to deport all homosexuals to another planet..."
3. Philosophers / Scholars - this is the gnosticism of the day... the Platonic elitism which says that some people are more fit to decide the right and wrong of society. But then who decides the standard for becoming one of the elite? Was Hitler one of the elite? Why, or why not?
4. Other... there may be other sources, but does it really matter? One thing is for sure, the aforementioned sources are all moving sources. They are not "fixed." By definition they are not sources of law.

All of the previous systems come from a worldview of humanism. Humanism says that man is the standard for determining law. This is the modern mindset. This thinking lays the foundations of relative truth. This is also why common sense has died in America. The only thing absolute is that there are no absolutes (If you can see it, that sentence does not even make sense... it is incoherent). To say that there are no absolutes, I must first say that there are absolutes. Without first admitting that truth is absolute, I cannot make any propositional statements, like... truth is relative. Hence, incoherence.

In direct opposition to the shifting line of humanism is theism. This is truth and law that comes from outside man. Man does not get to define this law, but rather, God defines it. It is absolute, and unchanging throughout history and culture. In other words, God tells man what He expects, instead of man determining what is right or wrong, good or bad, beautiful or ugly. One source changes... one source doesn't. One source (God) sums up His law in the pages of Scripture, the other source (man)sums his law up in the mountainous pages of bailouts, court decisions, and millions of other laws (from traffic violations to toxic disposal). One source provides liberty, the other tyranny... absolute tyranny...