Trump and Celebrities: A Beautiful Moment for the Natural Law

Last night I watched the latest episode of The Apprentice:  Celebrity Edition.  I have been pulled into the series this year largely because of the compelling finishes where The Donald lectures celebrities about their work habits and managerial ineptness.  Dennis Rodman has been a draw because of his incredibly bad behavior.

This was Dennis’ week.  His teammates chose him to be the project manager because they hoped he would rise to the challenge if he was running things.  It worked, for a short while, then he drank enough to go past caring.  First, he got angry.  Then, he absented himself from the project he was supposed to direct.

The men’s team lost, which gave rise to the beautiful moment.  Motorcycle entrepeneur and reality star Jesse James confronted Dennis Rodman with his drinking problem.  The others readily agreed with the diagnosis.  Rodman got angry and defensive, mostly offering support of his own worthiness by adverting to his NBA career which has been over for some time now.  Finally, getting nowhere, Rodman said in frustration, “I . . . I could kick all y’all’s asses.  Everyone one here.”

Now, I’m not sure that is actually true.  Jesse James, for example, was a professional bodyguard at one point.  But James didn’t respond to Rodman’s provocation with a physical challenge.  His actual reply was devastating:

“Then why don’t you kick our asses at being a good person?”

Rodman sat silent.

I called this a beautiful moment for the natural law because Jesse James put the idea out there for millions of people whether he or they realized it.  We know what a good person is.  We expect people to aspire to that AND to achieve it.

At a minimum, we expect people to be honest, to keep their promises, to be reliable, and to moderate their own behavior out of respect for others.  These are things Thomas Aquinas would say we can reason to from the premise of the social nature of man.  Rodman did none of that.  And he was kicked out.

Has Damon Linker Dethroned Natural Law?

I’ll save you the suspense. No.

Linker, known primarily for betraying Richard John Neuhaus by serving as editor of First Things and then publishing a book accusing Neuhaus of scurrilous theocratic aims, now writes primarily at the New Republic. In a recent post there, he brilliantly claims to have demonstrated the idea of natural law is obvious poppycock. Why? Because he disagrees with two officials of the Catholic Church holding that a nine year old who was raped and with her life endangered by the pregnancy should still have the children rather than an abortion. Linker reasons that if the Catholic Church is wrong about that, then their idea of natural law is wrong.

Where to start?

Given that Mr. Linker worked at First Things, I’d figure he had his Aquinas down pat. Thomas Aquinas (AKA, the DOCTOR OF NATURAL LAW) held that we should agree on the first principles of natural law (like that the lives of innocent children should be protected), but that we may well disagree with the application of that natural law on a case by case basis. Well, guess what? Here we have just such a case. Does it mean the idea of natural law is vacuous? No. And Aquinas didn’t think so, either.

Mr. Linker thinks the church (or more specifically two church officials) is wrong about this case. And maybe they are. I’m unfamiliar with it. But does his disagreement with their reasoning about this case mean that the larger principle (the lives of innocent children should be protected) no longer holds? No, that position is obviously incorrect. The broad propositions of the natural law continue to hold.

Bragging on an Undergrad

The latest issue of Religion & Liberty contains an essay I wrote for Acton about whether the relationship between social conservatives and libertarians can be saved. A student at my university (Houston Baptist University) read the essay and formulated a number of thoughts on his own. I was so affected by what this undergraduate sent me, I had to pass it along:

I have strong beliefs about limited government, states rights, individual liberty, free-markets, etc. But these beliefs come under fire when I see how one person’s pornography addiction leads to rape after years of unsatisfiable self-gratification, or when innocent children are born fatherless to promiscuous mothers.

There are 2 things I’ve come to realize. First, that every law is a removal of liberty. Second, that every system of law is either based upon the will of man, or based on that which we perceive to be Natural Law. Given this reality, the latter necessitates a belief in higher power, while the former holds no basis for the concept of “inalienable rights” whatsoever.

Without a giver of freedom the only “freedom” is that which is given by he who is stronger to he who is weaker.

Libertarian belief in liberty is founded in the idea that we have a God-given right to such liberty, and in that sense they share commonality with social conservatives.

But Liberty without order is chaos. There’s no doubt, law in our land is based on Natural Law. So the question is not whether we should legislate morality, but to what extent it should be done.

This is a question I still struggle to answer.

The young man’s name is Wesley Gant. I can’t tell you how happy I am to see a young person thinking things through this clearly.