Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark  If the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed were correct, the decalogue is a reflection of the natural law (a corollary to the republication doctrine). We don't need to appeal to Mosaic case/civil law to argue for civil enforcement of the second table.
The family is the basic, creational, natural, social unit. Adultery is a crime against nature. It violates the social contract implicit in the marriage vows (whether taken in church or before the magistrate). It weakens and essential relation and destabilizes a community. It is also a form of theft.
A marriage is a civil, not just religious, covenant. Transgression of the marriage covenant is a transgression of a civil covenant. Every transgression of the civil covenant, e.g. the reckless use of an auto or firearm is punishable by the magistrate.
We don't want the magistrate punishing sins of the heart but we dot want him punishing crimes against nature and the civil contract implicit in nature and social relations. That's why he bears the sword. |
Scott, you are right again! Unfortunately, with the rise of autonomous man and the depreciation of natural law, we are left with positive law. As taught by "genuises" like Lawrence Tribe, learned by the young lawyers in their JD coursework, upheld by the lower courts, and finally enshrined in legal precedent by the SCOTUS, we are expected to believe that "right" is whatever democratic consensus or "might" says it is.
Is it any wonder in our "judge not" era that no fault divorce would be the order of the day? I'm surprised we still win convictions in criminal trials in this country. Out here in LALA land, nobody wants to judge anybody's life. [The only thing our culture remembers from the Bible is a verse they can't even get straight in the interpretation or application]