To the editor

Here's what I sent to the local newspaper and the "Fair" Housing people.  Well, I had shorten it for the paper  but here it is.


I recently read a pair of articles concerning the case of a woman that the Fair Housing Center of Michigan is taking action against for advertising a desire for a Christian roommate. I must confess that I find this appalling. It does not seem to me that it is anyone's business who she chooses to live with. This applies even if she were seeking a person of a particular race as a roommate, which Ms. Haynes believes to be an analogous situation. While such an advertisement would likely demonstrate racism, it is still a person's right to choose who they spend their time with, not to mention live with. This is true because despite Ms. Haynes' contention, this woman is not in the business of renting. She is simply seeking another person to share her living space for the purpose of easing the burden of the rent that some other party is charging. Allowing someone into your home is far different from allowing someone into your place of business. If such were the case and the advertisement were for Christian “renters” instead of for a “roommate”, then this complaint would be valid. As it stands, this is not even an issue of freedom of expression but of common decency and privacy.

I also think that there is a need to clarify why seeking a roommate of a particular religion is not bigotry as it would be if the issue were concerning race. A religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or any other religion contains certain requirements for behavior. Should a Muslim find himself with a pagan roommate he (and likely the pagan) would find this to be a very unpleasant arrangement, filled with arguments over theology, TV, clothing, relationships, what food should be eaten, etc. Individual races are an accident of pigmentation and evolutionary developments suited to particular climates and thus contain no such mutually exclusive moral and religious codes. These codes can and often do coexist peacefully in the public square but doing so in the home is a very different matter indeed. Taking this into consideration, the woman the Fair Housing Center is taking action against is simply seeking a roommate with whom she can live peacefully.

Concerning the issue of whether or not it is okay to seek a roommate based on specific criteria but not to advertise for it, how else shall this be done? I can readily imagine at least two situations in which advertising is the best solution. Perhaps this woman has many friends but they are mostly married, or live far away? Perhaps she is new to the area and has few friends among whom she could seek a roommate. In either case, advertising for a specific roommate is the quickest and most logical solution.

I sincerely hope that after reflecting on this matter, they retract their action and allow this woman to go back to her life.

Sincerely,

Eric Postma

ejpostma2@gmail.com

You will be punished...

...for the slightest hint that .you are not celebrating and embracing every possible form of diversity.  Follow the link and prepare to be utterly astounded.
The crazy thing is that this has happened in my home area of West Michigan.  I grew up practically next door to where this is going on and frankly, I didn't think there were enough completely unreasonable people around here for something like this nonsense to happen.  Had a Christian been forbidden to advertise (at a church!) for a Christian roommate in say, the Soviet of Washington or the Socialist Republic of Canada I would not be shocked.  Still upset, but not shocked.  Anyway, check it out and be wowed.  I'm going to send a little letter to the Grand Rapids Press and to the "Fair" Housing Center and be sure to post it here with any response that I get.  Oh, and just to be sure that credit is given where and when it is due, the Alliance Defense Fund is defending the woman seeking the roommate.

Natural Law - How do we know?

Here's the next natural law essay.  Open to critique as always.

NATURAL LAW

How do we Know?

Last time, we left off wondering just how it is that we can know that there is a
natural law and what it may entail. This is an enormously important question since many
people deny not only the specific content of the natural law but also its very existence.

Main Objections

Ever since the dawn of recorded philosophy, the primary objection to the
existence of a universal natural law has been the differences between the codes of law and
moral standards of different cultures. This was first articulated by the ancient Greek
sophists who argued that the differences in laws and morals between the various city-
states (for example, the democracy of Athens vs. the totalitarian Sparta), precluded any
possibility of an objective and universal morality.
The other significant objection is simply that the many proponents of natural law
have been unable to agree on its specific content, leading to the conclusion that even if
there is a natural law, its content is unknowable to human reason.
These are powerful objections and have to be dealt with. How shall we do this?
.

Universal Principles, Particular Expressions

If you remember the last article, we touched on the fact that the basic and
universal principles of the natural law can be applied in different ways when we get down
to the particular situations of our daily lives. The same thing applies on a larger scale to
cultures. Just as our own circumstances can affect how we apply the natural law, so
various circumstances such as geography, climate, custom and technology can affect how
different cultures in different times and places how those cultures understand and apply
the natural law.
For example, whereas theft is universally proscribed by the natural law, the
availability of certain resources could affect how this particular crime is punished. For
example, a desert tribe is likely to treat the theft of water very harshly due to its scarcity.
Conversely, a tropical tribe may treat it less harshly since it is readily available. In fact,
theft of water likely would not even exist among them. However, a different tropical
tribe may come to treat water with a deep religious significance, treating it as a life-giver
or even a creator (I don’ t know if this has ever happened, this is just a thought
experiment). This tribe would treat the theft of water or perhaps specific reserves of
water very seriously indeed but for very different reasons than our fictional desert tribe
would.
Respect for human life is another universal principle of the natural law.
Normally, this is codified in law with injunctions against murder. However, it is
interesting to note that often certain classes of people, such as slaves are often excluded

from a given society. In such societies, it may not be considered murder for a person to
kill his own slave. It is not that the society does not respect human life but rather that it
fails to recognize certain classes of people as human and worthy of respect and protection
under the law.
This principle has other applications as well. In India for instance, the eating of
certain animals is prohibited because they believe that those animals may harbor the
reincarnated spirit of their ancestors.
Another more modern example demonstrates how technology has affected our
application and consideration of the principles of theft and also the rights of people to be
rewarded for their work. The example I have in mind concerns the way that
developments in digital technology have affected the transmission and sharing of music,
books and movies.
Most people will remember the battles surrounding Napster, Limewire and other
music sharing services of several years ago, as well as the constant campaigns against
digital piracy. Studios complained of lost profits and artists that their work was being
distributed and manipulated without any consent on their part. People who engaged in
these activities argued that they were simply sharing music or making copies and new
versions of different media solely to amuse themselves and others. After all, no one ever
had a problem with making copies of albums or recording TV shows with cassette and
VHS tapes.
The difference of course is the significant change in technology. Using the old
methods, copies were relatively expensive, difficult and time consuming to make, as well
as being of lower quality than the original. With digital technology, making and sharing
almost exact copies of different media became fast, simple and cheap. While the
fundamental actions of recording and sharing media remained the same, the technology
change forced a reevaluation of how these activities affected the creators of the various
movies, books and music that could now be transmitted almost instantly around the
world.
None of this should be taken to mean that all applications of natural law principles
are equally legitimate or legitimate at all so long as one can articulate the reasons for the
particular application. As we shall see, it is always possible to interpret a principle in way
that either contradicts itself, or more commonly, another, more fundamental principle.
Returning to Sparta, we can see a very clear of this kind of misapplication of a
natural law, in this case, the principle that we should seek the good of the community of
which we are a part. Believing that the communal good relied largely on the ability of the
community to defend itself from invasion, Spartan society became focused on the
development of physical prowess to the exclusion of all else. They carried this so far that
if children, even infants showed any sign of weakness, they would be left to die. While
the good of the community is important it should be clear that the Spartans pursued this
good at the expense of the greater good of respect for human life, without which there is
no community to defend.

Opposing Versions

The other significant objection to the existence of the natural law is simply that
many different versions of it exist. Much like arguments against the existence of God,

the multiplicity of views is taken as evidence that there is no such thing as natural law or
that if there is, it is unknowable.
The clearest modern examples of different and even opposing views of natural law
lie in the battle over the meaning of human sexuality and the respect of human life. At
first, it may seem like this fight is not a fight between different versions of natural law.
This is for two reasons. The first is that the views are so incredibly different and the
second is that only one side actually claims the term natural law. The other side of these
debates uses the term human or civil rights. However, while superficially different, these
alternative terms both rest on the notion that are certain universal principles that should
govern human behavior and even legislation in the public square. One revolves primarily
around the existence of a natural order to which we ought to conform and the other
around the principle that it is our ability to choose that defines us. In either case we are
dealing with opposing views of human nature, of what it means to be human. How can
we be sure which is correct? To explore this, we’ ll use the modern battles over abortion
and homosexual sex/marriage as test cases.
A first principle that everyone can agree on is that we all seek fulfillment. What is
more, we can agree that should seek our greatest fulfillment. Now, regardless of what we
believe that fulfillment to consist in, an undeniable prerequisite of reaching or even
seeking that fulfillment is being alive to do so. Therefore, it is obvious even at this early
stage that abortion, as the ending of a human life, violates this first principle.
Homosexual sex (and homosexual “ marriage” is similar in that it is a sexual act that by its
very nature cannot result in the birth of new life, the very purpose of the sexual act in the
first place.
There are other indicators as well. Abortion, for example has well documented
negative effects on women’ s mental health afterwards. There are also strong ties between
abortion and breast cancer, the link being that the interruption of the body’ s natural
development during pregnancy results in a flood of hormones that the body no longer has
to handle.
In the matter of homosexual sex, it is well documented that diseases are more
easily transmitted, suicide rates are higher among the homosexual population and certain
physical injuries may result as well. It is also common knowledge that homosexual
relationships are generally more unstable than traditional relationships. All of these are
indicators that homosexual relationships are not conducive to the best fulfillment of
human life and are therefore contrary to the natural law. This also points to the answer to
out initial question of how we can know that there is any such thing as natural law? The
answer is simply that there are certain principles that if followed will lead to the highest
fulfillment of human life. Conversely, we see that there are certain actions that lead us
away from that fulfillment.
So, if all of these different objections are so easily dealt with why is it that so
many people have such a hard time recognizing the natural law and adhering to it? We
will look at this question next time.

Electronics Update

That new Asus I last posted about has been working out great so far.  The night I set it up, I wound up playing Starcraft 2 for 5 hours straight and it barely blinked.  It also does a great job streaming Netflix movies and runs Stellarium beautifully.  I highly recommend you get one. 
On the cell phone front, it turns out that the Sienna phone tends to drop calls in the house after all.  That means we won't be dropping ATT in favor of them.  We may wind up doing Vonage instead. 
In other news, my work and my basement are going smoothly.  Well, mostly.  However, they are keeping me from getting to the numerous sci-fi related posts that I want to do.

New Computer

The HP my wife and I got last spring had been giving us fits (slow, won't take a blasted charge) for about the last six months.  Finally, we decided to get a new one a couple of days ago and it just arrived today.  I'm now sporting a new Asus notebook with an i7 processor.  I'm just finishing up the install on startcraft 2.  With a little luck, this beast will actually play the game half-way decently.

Update on Sienna

After a few minor travails, I got my new phone from Sienna Communications and it works great.  The phone is nothing special but the reception where I live is good and the customer service is friendly.  I plan on dropping my landline and getting another phone from them in the next week or so.  Believe it or not, with the cheap plan my wife and I will be using, we'll be saving a fair amount of money every month.

Thanks

Go out to Mark Shea for linking to my blog, to John C. Wright for linking to my review of his Golden Age Trilogy (yes, I am pleased) and to Jeff Miller (better known as the Curt Jester) for being my first commentor.

Natural Law - A Series

I wrote a little essay on natural law for my brother's website, the below mentioned Catechetical Foundations.  For those more philosophical astute than I am, feel free to correct or elaborate on anything that needs it.  After all, I'm just an average schmo who happens to like reading books and arguing.  You can also read it at his site under the free resources link.  Anyway, here it is:

Natural Law

Introduction

      If you spend any time reading about the many social controversies of the day, you will sooner or later run into the term natural law. Usually, it is used to highlight the fact that opposition to things such as abortion and homosexual sex are not due exclusively to religious reasons. Yet, rarely do any of the vast number of articles and essays on these subjects attempt to inform the reader as to what the natural law is or what it entails. Hopefully, this first of a series of articles on natural law, its content, history and place in the public square will help you in some small to cut through the philosophical fog.

 Natural law – From the ground up
  

    Okay, so what is natural law? For starters, if may be helpful to restate the term “natural law” as “the law of nature.” This makes it easier to see that at the most basic level, natural law means that all things follow, or should follow the pattern nature has set for them. All this means is that when an electron and a proton are attracted to each other, when the presence of water, sun and soil cause a plant to grow and the apple falls from the tree rather than flying off into space they are simply following the dictates of the natural law. In the same way, when dolphins swim, dogs mate and a lion runs down a gazelle, they are all following the natural law.
     Now, naturally, you may be thinking that since all of these examples differ so much they cannot possibly be an example of a single natural law. In a way, this is true.  There is not a single natural law that applies in the same way, to all things. However, what the examples do point to is not that the natural law dictates the same actions for all things but that each thing does what it does to fulfill its nature. So as the electron spins around the nucleus of the atom it is fulfilling its nature as an electron and the lion is fulfilling its nature as a lion as it brings down the gazelle.

     Okay, that's the ground floor, the lowest common denominator if you will. Having established that the natural law implies different actions for different orders of creation and different species within those orders, how does it apply to us? After all, that's what we're really interested in isn't it?
     First, we must do those things that are in accord with our nature as human beings.  And what is in accord with our nature is good and what is contrary to it is evil.  This brings us to St. Thomas Aquinas’ first principle of natural law, “we are to do good and avoid evil.”  Naturally, that is a little vague, so let’s flesh it out a bit. 

     Starting again at the most basic level, this refers to those things or inclinations relating to preserving our life and that of the species.  This of course means that self defense and sexual intercourse are in accord with the natural law.  But as Aquinas again points out there are other inclinations unique to man due to his capacity to reason.  These things include our inclinations to live in an ordered society, to create (or sub-create if you prefer) and to seek to know the truth about the world in which we live and above all to seek the truth about God.  Incidentally, some will say that this last bit gives away the fact that natural law is merely dogma dressed up as philosophy.  This question is beyond the scope of this short article so I will simply say here that the idea that we are inclined to seek the truth about God doesn’t actually say anything about His nature or even whether or not He exists.  We’ll go more in depth on this particular question later in the series. 

     In short, all of our natural inclinations, provided that they are ruled and guided by reason are considered to be part of the natural law.

Natural Law – From the abstract to the particular

     We are still dealing largely with abstractions, so let’s keep fleshing out the particular injunctions of natural law, especially as it relates to our daily lives.  Here, we find that the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and courage serve as invaluable guides in conforming our actions to the natural law.  To understand that the virtues are themselves part of the natural law, simply take their opposites, addiction/fanaticism/licentiousness, rashness, injustice and cowardice and try to build a life with these anti-virtues as your guides.  And then imagine the long term effects of their practice on the individual and those around him.  I think most people would agree that this would be an unmitigated disaster.
     Now, let’s take a look at how those virtues help guide us in particular actions and behaviors, especially when we find ourselves swimming in somewhat murky waters.

     Naturally, the injunction to avoid evil acts prevents things like lying, cheating, stealing etc. as they are contrary to justice.  Other things like gluttony and substance abuse offend against temperance.  Yes, this means getting drunk is bad, even for Catholics.  Excessive gambling or telling people every bad thought you have about them are contrary to both prudence and temperance.  And a tendency to avoid any and all conflict is of course contrary to courage.  This means that there is a difference between turning the other cheek and being a doormat.
     On the more positive side of things, donating time, talent and treasure to your parish or some sort of charity, simply performing our daily jobs to the best of our ability, telling the truth, not eating four doughnuts at the morning meeting, are all in accord with the virtues and thus with natural law. 

     Now, this may give you the impression that there is some sort of natural law checklist or flow chart tucked away in an appendix of the Catechism.  For better or worse, there is no such thing.  One reason is that the combination of actions, virtues, intentions and circumstances results in an infinite number of possibilities.  This is one of the reasons why we have been given the ability to reason (and incidentally, why we are obligated to use this ability) so that we can determine how to apply the concepts outlined by the cardinal virtues to the particular circumstances that we come across in our daily lives. 
     Let’s take a couple of examples.  Say a person has some spare money that he want to give to an organization that relies on donations for support.  This organization provides counseling and cancer screening services which are both matters of particular concern to our generous donor.  However, the organization also performs abortions.  According to the natural law he can’t give to this organization since they are engaging in an activity that directly contradicts the injunction to preserve the species as well as the injunction to avoid killing innocent life.  But what if the circumstances are somewhat different?  Say, the organization is perfectly fine.  Rather than abortions, the organization provides material aid to single mothers?  But now our would-be donor has had to take a severe pay cut and to donate the money he was planning on would mean that he cannot provide adequate food for his family?  The virtues of prudence and justice would require our generous donor to hold off for a while, or at least to make a smaller donation. 
     These examples are fairly simple and certainly one can imagine more complicated scenarios.  Yet, they do indicate how the application of basic principles can help us navigate particular circumstances. Of course, one can also imagine people reaching different conclusions in these and other circumstances.  In fact, there is even a large amount of disagreement about the principles themselves as well as the methods we should use to apply them.  How can we say then that there is a natural law that can be known by human reason without the aid of revelation?  This question will be explored in the next article.