A fairly well respected member of our community, in fact, someone I have respected very much in the past, reminded me of one reason why I do not consider myself a secularist. This person asserted that the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, are the highest authorities on the law, and because I stated that the courts have made improper decisions and violated people's natural rights (which, by the way, are recognized in our founding documents), I was compared to people who bomb abortion clinics.
I truly find it troubling that so few people who I have discussed the issue with in the past actually believe in natural rights and natural law. Not only, as I said, are these enshrined in our founding documents, but the leaders of early liberalism were natural rights thinkers. Their belief in natural rights was generally the foundation of their liberalism.
Now natural rights and natural law, I think, are entirely consistent with secularism, but the reasoning in this matter exposes part of why I am not a secularist. And as well, its one of the areas where liberalism comes close to falling away from secularism.
I absolutely believe in natural rights. Natural rights, to me, are self evident, such as the right to self-defense, which none can take away from us. One can always try to defend themselves, even if it is made illegal. We have other natural rights which are generally recognized by us, even if not civil law, like moral equality. That is the point of natural rights and natural law- they operate regardless of civil law.
Natural rights are what abolitionists invoked, what Martin Luther King, Jr., and many others invoked in the struggle for civil rights, what people continue to invoke in the struggle for equal rights, when they say that we do not live up to our principles written in our founding documents. Natural rights and natural law recognize our inherent human equality, among other things, which even constitutional law cannot contradict. There are indeed higher laws than even our constitution.
Abstract things like principles and concepts do exist. We may not be able to find true justice in the world, and may never be able to equate it on earth, but it surely exists, similar to a Platonic form. We may not be able to grasp them, in fact, we cannot, but the gift of reason is ours to try to come closer and closer to true knowledge over time. It is those on the Right who are supposed to believe that traditional law is valid and permanent and should never be changed, while it is we on the left who are supposed to believe that human reason will progress our knowledge of what the best laws should be to bring about true justice. It is we who are supposed to believe that the world is not perfect, but that we should try to make it live up to its potential. It is we who are supposed to recognize fundamental human equality and human rights even when the law does not.
This is only a very small part of why I am not a secularist, because, as I said, it isn't that much in conflict with secularism. It is in conflict with those who are unable to accept the notion of the existence of abstract things unprovable by science, but I don't think it is necessarily incompatible with secular government. In fact, our secular founders (those founders who were secularists) generally believed in natural rights and natural law. It is an area where classic liberals could be quite dogmatic, though, among other things which secularists might object to, but it was the general view of our founders and Enlightenment thinkers nonetheless.
And so yes, when I argue that the courts can be wrong about law, because they are merely bodies of imperfect men, imprisoned by the popular views of the days in which they serve, corrupted by power and prestige, I suppose one could compare me to abortion clinic bombers, but in the same camp would be men like Thomas Jefferson and John Locke and Martin Luther King, Jr. These are the principles this nation was founded and continues to be refounded upon.
The courts do at times do injustice to the law. Would any truly argue with me when I assert that they are acting illegitimately when they do so?
Consider Scalia's majority on Heller, where although I do believe Americans should have an individual right to own guns, I agree with the following:
While plaintiff prevailed under a starkly divided court, the majority failed to provide any clear and convincing evidence to support their claim for a protected individual right. Instead, Scalia presents strained, forced constructions that often were self-contradicting, and seemingly, served only to favor the majorities’ own prejudicial ideal of what keeping and bearing arms should mean.
And this is but one of the most recent cases. What about Bush v. Gore for another? Are we to just accept these as the highest, most authoritative judgments of the law? I think the answer is clearly not.
We should be a nation that believes in principles that are greater than ourselves, that believes there is a higher purpose to continued existence than just continued existence itself. We should struggle to come closer to true justice, and when we see that we are wrong, we must correct ourselves and move as closely to true justice as possible, rather than accepting the laws as Congress and the courts give them to us.
Now, briefly, as I am bout to conclude, consider the alternative, a world without natural rights and natural law. Today's progressives, and even many conservatives, believe this to be the case. The think that our rights are merely what we agree they are- in other words, there are no higher human rights than those civil rights which governments may choose to recognize. But doesn't this violate our vision? Our laws don't currently recognize the inherent equality of gays and lesbians and transgendered and bi folks, but many of us nevertheless believe that they are equal and that the government is illegitimately denying them rights, because despite our attempts at secularizing our beliefs, bringing our principles out of the temple of high civilization and down to our muddy earthly existence, we actually do believe in natural law and natural rights. But without natural law and natural rights, if we take the courts decisions as the proper law of the land, our LGBT compatriots have no principle to stand on.
Or is justice merely the will of the strongest, to be determined by elections?