LETTERS.

`Natural Law': Not For Catholics Only

Church & State is one of my favorite magazines, and I rarely have a quarrel with anything in it, but I was startled to come across the following definition of "natural law" in the May issue ("Scalia, Bork Help Domino's Billionaire Develop Far-Right Catholic Law School," People & Events): "the belief that Catholic teachings are objectively true and that they transcend secular law."

To say that this is an inaccurate definition of natural law doesn't begin to express what's wrong with it.

Natural law is the concept that morality (including the proper relationship between the individual and the state) is objectively grounded in the nature of human beings and that such morality can be discovered by the use of reason alone.

Thomas Aquinas did indeed believe that this morality, once discovered, would agree with that propounded by the Catholic Church, but quite a few proponents of natural law have thought otherwise, and they include John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill. Natural law was the foundation of the Enlightenment, which was the foundation of the United States, because it effectively countered the position of the European Protestant churches of the time. Those churches claimed that all morality came from God by revelation, and that it was God who divinely ordained the leadership of states.

All of the arguments in favor of church-state separation ever written by either Thomas Jefferson or James Madison are arguments from natural law. So is the entire concept of "inalienable" rights, one of which is precisely that freedom of conscience whose formal acknowledgement made the United States the world's first secular state.

Natural law is properly opposed to divine law and to relativist moralities.

--Jane Haddam Watertown, Conn.

Editor's Note: We appreciate this clarification. Our article should have made it clear that Thomas Monaghan and supporters of his new Catholic law school use the term "natural law" as the Catholic Church defines it.

Catholic Law School: Fruitless Venture

My law practice began in 1952. My specialty was litigation. In almost 50 years, I have recognized all kinds of lawyers, usually categorizing one as good, mediocre, bad, indifferent or incompetent. Until reading about the proposed Catholic law school in Michigan ("Scalia, Bork Help Domino's Billionaire Develop Far-Right Catholic Law School," People & Events, May Church & State), I have never experienced a practicing Catholic lawyer, Protestant lawyer, Jewish lawyer or atheist lawyer. Nothing could be more ridiculous.

The legal profession and the law schools need to further serve the public by training women and men to use the full capacity of their minds. Their religious affiliation is totally immaterial.

With the extent of suffering and lack of decency throughout the world, it is a pity that Domino Pizza magnate Thomas S. Monaghan is pouring $1 billion into what will prove to be a fruitless venture.

Hopefully Robert Bork will serve on the faculty. They deserve him.

--Cliff B. Gosney, Jr. Port Orange, Fla.

Reconstructing The Bible

This is in reference to the letter from Robert F. Clayton of Christ's Covenant Church ("Biblical Law Authorizes Strong Rebellious Youth," Letters, June Church & State). I am assuming this is a Christian Reconstructionist church. As far as I am concerned, he is doing an awful lot of reconstructing of the Bible.

Clayton seems to think it is easier to consider stoning your children if it is a last resort. I have always believed that Christ made stoning an impossibility. Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you cast the first stone." Which Reconstructionists qualify as stoners? I guarantee you that I could not qualify to stone my child or anyone else's.

I wonder, is Elder Robert E. Clayton without sin? The Bible says, "All have sinned."

--Karen Webb Moore, Okla.

Religion In School: Be Careful What You Pray For

Let's say we all woke up one morning and, lo and behold, "prayer in school" had become the law of the land. Alas, that Christian Right goal was actually achieved!

But what would happen if, in this imaginary scenario, the Supreme Court ruled that for the first 10 years the school prayer would be a Muslim prayer, the next 10 a Jewish prayer, the third decade an atheist "prayer," the fourth a Catholic prayer, the 5th a Buddhist prayer, the 6th an agnostic prayer, the 7th a homosexual prayer, the 8th a Wiccan prayer, the 9th a Jehovah's Witness prayer and the 10th a Christian Right prayer? No deviation from that order whatsoever would be allowed.

Ah! We now have prayer in school as law.

How rapidly would the Christian Right muster its forces to have prayer in school abolished? Christian Right activists better be careful what they pray for ... they just might get it.

--Haywood Stewart Asheville, N.C.

Church & State welcomes letters to the editor. Although not all correspondence can be published, readers' opinions are appreciated. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit all letters for brevity and clarity.