“Hodgepodge thoughts regarding Justice”
I think you will agree with me that Hitler and his Nazi party stand out as one of the most repugnant memories in the annals of history. The question I raise is this: Were the nations that condemned the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials justified in rendering justice? Now before you question my sanity, please read the following lines patiently. If positive law philosophy and macroevolution (theory that holds to the idea that all varieties of life forms emanated from a single cell or “common ancestor.”) are the highest law by which to bring condemnation upon another human being or sovereign nation, then all sovereign nations have the right to do good or do evil, and no other sovereign nation can hold the other accountable for its perceived crimes. Follow me. This gets clearer.
As social Darwinism and nationalism merged in Germany during the early twentieth century, the concept of fostering a genetically superior race called the Volk (the people) was established. The idea of the Volk was extended to various biological analogies, shaped by the contemporary beliefs of heredity, and designed to protect Germany from ‘racial inferiority.’ The German’s were trying to perfect eugenics, the science that investigates methods involving the betterment of the genetic composition of the human race. (In this case the Aryan race.) One of their goals was to eliminate the ‘inferior’ races and offspring and preserve the ‘better’ progeny. (This method is perfectly consistent with macroevolution and central principle, the survival of the fittest.) Nazi Germany figured if they could win the war and purge the world of Jews and other undesirables, they could rule the world as a “revived Roman Empire” to last a thousand years.
Again I ask you: Can America, or any other country, charge German officials with crimes against humanity? Especially since Germany felt it had a national obligation to achieve genetic purity? The research being conducted at the death camps was in accordance with Nazi law, and Nazi law defined what was right and just—in a word, what was legal. Dr. Geisler, in his book that he co-authored with Peter Bocchino entitled, Unshakable Foundations (Bethany House), makes a sobering and poignant comment that’s worth repeating here. He writes, “As long as naturalistic macroevolution and positive law are the dominating scientific and legal viewpoints both in theory (education) and in practice (law), we run the risk of returning to one of the darkest eras in the history of the human race.” If we continue teaching our children that the law of the state is the highest law in the universe, and man is simply a product of natural selection, then we are doomed to repeat the evils of the past.
I believe that national governments of all countries are responsible to God and its citizens to discover and protect human rights. However, positive law proponents disagree. They believe that nations and their governments create laws. In light of history, this is a dangerous philosophy to embrace. Accountability, according to the Bible, is first to God and then to the state. God ordained human governments to maintain order throughout the world. Citizens are to abide by the laws of the land; however when a man’s law supersedes God’s law, God’s people must resist it with all their might.
I conclude this “hodgepodge” of thoughts with a quote from Thomas Jefferson. He said, “God who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation remain secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
Article Source: https://www.bharatbhasha.com
Article Url: https://www.bharatbhasha.com/legal.php/29067
|Legal >> Top 50 Articles on Legal|
|Category - >|