There’s another sense in that we’ve been heading here for sometime. We can date things back to FDR and his “safety net” of Social Security. At 16+% this has turned into a “noose” rather than a safety net. There are more laws on the books today than ever before and crime is at some of it’s all time highs. Morality, which laws are established to keep, is at an all time low. 

All of this makes perfect sense if you understand that the further any organization moves away from an inner morality the more laws it needs. This is further proof of an objective law written on our hearts. We know what we ought to do, how we ought to behave. However, the more we ignore that “ought” the more we feel the need to establish more laws - now these laws try to establish a different morality. Not the morality we instinctively know, the ones the framers of the Constitution and the writer’s of the Declaration of Independence referenced, but a new morality based on cultural norms and laws based on precedence. They are laws based on what “is” rather than on what “ought” to be.

Up until the mid-nineteenth century, American law was based on Sir William Blackstone’s commentary on “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” It was the “law book.” Somewhere in the middle of the nineteenth century something changed and now law was based on preceding rulings - precedence. Of course, this began to turn law away from any objective moral standard to a subjective view of the ruling judges. Think about it - there was no longer an objective standard to which laws were referenced but now it was “how the judges saw it.” One law was established, the precedence to over.

The judges now become the final authority in any ruling. There has been a divide in judicial courts since then. Remember Clarence Thomas - natural law theorist. During his confirmation hearing one of the first questions asked him was whether he believed in “natural law.” As soon as he answered in the affirmative the plot unfolded to discredit him. Remember Judge Bork? Same thing. Bork was probably one of the best candidates for the Supreme Court, however his view of natural law swiftly set him up to be “Borked.”

So what does this have to do with “inner morality?” We could look at Thomas Aquinas’ view of law - wonderful study. He echoes the Church Fathers who saw Eternal Law as the nature of God Himself. This is communicated to the human race by God writing it on our hearts. That’s why all humans everywhere know it is wrong to murder, that is intentionally take the life of an innocent human being. Of course, some societies would define “innocent” differently, as well as “human being.” All humans know it is wrong to steal, that is take the property of others for yourself. This is natural law.

Civil law is an interpretation of what is natural law written on our hearts. That is, humans codify the law written on their hearts. Where western civilization has progressed is having the light of the gospel further illuminate the natural law.

Christianity is often criticized, no demonized, for things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. It would be easy to defend Christianity against these actions as they’re not representing the heart of the message at all. Instead why not look at the affect of the Christian message on civil law that led to the emancipation of slaves - never before done in the history of mankind. It also brought the equality of personhood for women and children to social movements that elevated their status. The law written on the hearts of men and women dictated that no one ought to enslave another human being or treat others with cruelty.

Whenever the law written on the heart is sought out and interpreted, it has worked for the betterment of mankind. The founders of this nation were conscious of this and worked to establish some of the best laws man has ever known. Arguably the U.S. Constitution is one of the best governing documents ever written. The men who labored with it wrestled with expressing the law written on their hearts. They even reference the “laws of nature and nature’s God.”

However, somewhere we’ve departed from the law’s of nature and nature’s God and moved into situation ethics, pragmatism, and a consequentialism that looks for what is pleasing to the most people. We’ve begun to interpret law by what “is” rather than what “ought” to be. We’ve started pulling down these fences without asking why they were here in the first place. 

Take abortion for example: One of the arguments for abortion is that women will do it any way, “in back alleys.” So, because women will do it anyway, it’s alright to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being.

Take premarital sex among teenagers: Instead of seeing sex as something reserved for marriage between one woman and one man, we state: you can’t stop them from doing it, so teach them how to have safe sex. The shift is complete: we’ve moved from an inner morality of what ought to be to what is and “legalized” or “condoned” something we know is not proper or right. In the case of abortion the results are devastating for the unborn. The two are related because sex outside of marriage produces the most instances of abortion. This is just one example of how our lawmaking has changed our culture. At the moment, those who disregard natural law are on the rise.

One glaring example of confrontation between these two ideologies was when Nancy Pelosi met with Pope Benedict and told him he needed to change the way the Catholic Church viewed abortion. On the one hand you have an arrogance that is, for me, unimagined. On the other hand there is a woman who is unconscious of religious beliefs, protocol, and respect. She might as well have told the Pope he ought to be getting out and dating a bit. She had no idea who she was addressing and had the unmitigated gall to instruct the leader of the Catholic Church. Something happens to people when they get elected to Congress . . . In many cases, they get a good dose of stupid.

However, there is one hope that holds out for me. In all of the rhetoric surrounding the public issues, cultural trends, and political bantering there is one omission that is continually made. God is watching and is not uninvolved. God watches over nations to raise them up and cast them down. He liberates and destroys. We’d be fools to think that God would just let things go as we wish. We should all take a page from Sir William Blackstone and before we speak make reference to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.