Critical Legal Studies: the radical assault on truth in American law was already apparent many decades ago
I became interested in Critical Legal Studies long ago, in the 1980s. I had been to law school in the 1970s, so it didn’t affect my own legal education. To the best of my recollection, although my law school had conservative and leftist professors, their politics never entered the classroom. There, it was strictly legal reasoning, and a meritocracy.
Critical Legal Studies changed all that and was alarming right from the start. Twenty years or so ago, I bought a book about it called Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law. It had been published in 1997. Here’s an excerpt, which proves how long ago it was possible to see the writing on the wall for those who were looking. And by the way, co-authors Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry were liberals rather than conservatives. But they were alarmed nevertheless and wrote this:
We can now summarize the fundamental tenets of the new radical multiculturalism. If the modern era begins with the European Enlightenment, the postmodern era that captivates the radical multiculturalists begins with its rejection. According to the new radicals, the Enlightenment-inspired ideas that have previously structured our world, especially the legal and academic parts of it, are a fraud perpetrated and perpetuated by white males to consolidate their own power. Those who disagree are not only blind but bigoted. The Enlightenment’s goal of an objective and reasoned basis for knowledge, merit, truth, justice, and the like is an impossibility: “objectivity” in the sense of standards of judgment that transcend individual perspectives, does not exist. Reason is just another code word for the views of the privileged. The Enlightenment itself merely replaced one socially constructed view of reality with another, mistaking power for knowledge. There is naught but power.
They saw all of that back then.
The next chapter of the book is entitled “Transforming the Law.” It begins with the idea that these movements in the humanities departments of universities were as yet still limited to the universities, which may have been the case in the 1990s but certainly is no longer true, as graduates of such courses have taken the helm in many professions such as journalism. The authors were correct in stating that when the movement spread to law schools, it became far more influential in the immediate sense.
The rest of the chapter is extraordinarily insightful although hard to summarize, but it describes how the Critical Legal Studies proponents teach that law is about power and so reason has little to no place in it and is merely a convenient facade for power plays. For example, here’s a description of the work of Derrick Bell, the first black law professor to get tenure at Harvard and a very influential voice in the movement:
As Derrick Bell puts it, law is “not a formal mechanism for determining outcomes in a neutral fashion – as traditional legal scholars maintain – but rather a ramshackle ad hoc affair whose ill-fitting joints are soldered together by suspect rhetorical gestures, leaps of illogic, and special pleading tricked up as general rules, all in the service of a decidedly partisan agenda that wants to wrap itself in the mantle and majesty of law.” Specifically, Bell argues that although courts proclaim a veneer of high principle, judges rule in favor of black interests only when the interests of whites are thereby served; the ultimate agenda is white self-interest.
This idea of Bell’s and of Critical Legal Studies in general – that law is a sham and only about power – is an excuse for subsequently making it a sham in pursuit of power, as we see today with lawfare. After all, if law is inherently only about power and always was, why not play the game better and boldly use it to empower your team? Of course, you may sometimes have to pretend to fairness and logic for a while, to fool the plebeians. But the left seems to have given up on objectivity and fairness as a goal for which to strive when dealing with one’s political opponents. People such as Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who still believes in those goals – however imperfectly realized – of legal objectivity and fairness to both sides, are considered dinosaurs at best and traitors at worst to the leftist cause, and have been treated as such by the left in recent years.
These trends in law are the result of close to forty years of careful nurturance, and that has borne very ripe fruit. And no, of course law was never anywhere near perfect, but objectivity and fairness were goals towards which most law professors taught their students to respect and strive, and it was often achieved. There are still some professors of that type around, but they are getting more and more rare, and that is no accident.
CLS began at Haavaad.
From Wiki:
“Duncan Kennedy (born 1942) is an American legal scholar and held the Carter Professorship of General Jurisprudence at Harvard Law School until 2015. Now emeritus, he is best known as one of the founders of the critical legal studies movement.”
CLS was founded some 30-40 years ago. General Jurisprudence? Really? The poisoning of young legal minds.
Laws have always been about making criminals out of subjects and/or fellow citizens. Maybe some legal code like the Code of Urukagina started out with good intentions, but in the end it is about making criminals out of subjects and/or fellow citizens.
Most everyone seems to Love ‘Da Law until they become victims of it.
Look at the Rule of Law here in America. Years ago you be sent to prison for possession of a single joint (marijuana). Today I voted Yes on an Amendment that ‘Legalizes recreational marijuana for Floridians and out-of-state visitors 21 and older.’ People in some states in America can operate Marijuana businesses. People in other states are still serving long prison sentences for trafficking marijuana.
Rule of Law has never been about “truth” – it has always been meant to protect BIG Governments and Kings ‘n Such…
Patrick Deneen discusses Strauss’ Three Waves of Modernity essay with The New Thinkery guys (1:04:00): https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/show/thenewthinkery/id/33528252
@neo
This idea of Bell’s and of Critical Legal Studies in general – that law is a sham and only about power – is an excuse for subsequently making it a sham in pursuit of power
Oh, well played, I say! Well nailed.
@Karmi
Laws have always been about making criminals out of subjects and/or fellow citizens.
You reject every human attempt in recorded history to achieve fair and even-handed governance? Better read some more.
Insufficiently+Sensitive
Too funny! 🙂 Humans attempting to “achieve fair and even-handed governance”.
There’s gotta be one of those fancy terms in the English language for that quote – ‘oxymoron‘ or one of the other fancy words like it…
Karmi the anarchist.
Who was one of bell and de ungers star pupils barack obama (he included his texts in the syllabi for his civil rights law course, just a praxis on community organizing
@Karmi
So laws against murder are just because you deprive the king of subjects. Laws against theft is solely because if you steal from the king’s subjects they won’t be able to pay their taxes.
You’ve figured it all out.
We have seen everythere they have legalized pot it is a disaster not only california but new york colorado oregon et al thate empirical fact why would we try this here in the last sane state
This is a great post that truly gets to the heart of the matter. For the left to truly assume power, reason itself must be destroyed. In a world where reason reigns, they lose. The crazy thing is they get that better than we do. They are not ashamed of it. Foucault, Derrida, and the rest of their champion philosophers specifically said it.
This is the best book I’m aware of on the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406
Highly recommend. It is important to know one’s enemy!
Miguel says:”why would we try this here in the last sane state”. I infer he perhaps speaks of MA, which is peopled by nutties. No sanity there!
They invert the purpose of government we dont need chaos we need a modicum of order
In praise of insanity (continued)…
“Judge Orders Virginia to Restore 1,600 People to Voter Rolls
Posted”—
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/10/judge-orders-virginia-to-restore-1600-people-to-voter-rolls/
“Hillary Claims Trump is ‘Reenacting’ the 1939 Nazi Rally at Madison Square Garden Nazi Rally in 1939”—
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/10/hillary-claims-trump-is-reenacting-the-1939-nazi-rally-at-madison-square-garden-nazi-rally-in-1939/
“MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski Says Trump is ‘Killing Women’”—
https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/10/msnbcs-mika-brzezinski-says-trump-is-killing-women/
BTW, such rampant, wall-to-wall insanity (or, if you prefer, pan-HYSTERIA) is the Democratic Party’s attempt to inflate this madness to astronomic levels, IOW making it the 2024 version of the COVID pandemic…in order to take advantage of such insanity and hysteria at the “polls”, so called…
I.e., the real, over-arching “October surprise”.
You have to remember that democrats calling republicans Hitler has a long history starting with FDR. He claimed his opponent Windell Willkie used Hitler tactics.
Dewey i think, the guy on the wedding cake, truman said ‘from the people who brought you tojo hitler and mussolini’ so dems have been irresponsible for a long time
Brian E on October 25, 2024 at 3:34 pm
Huh, maybe I am. I guess anyone bashing the Rule of Law by calling it “Lawfare,” when either they or one of theirs breaks the Law, isn’t an anarchist…right?
Grok: anarchism
AI Grok answer:
BREAK – That “Anarcho-Capitalism” sounds interesting. OK, during this brief search I also came across ‘Individualist anarchism‘. Seems BIG Governments of all types don’t like Anarchism, i.e., Capitalist Govts don’t like it, Socialist Govts don’t like it, Communist Govts don’t like it, Nazi/Fascist Govts like Iran don’t like it, etc. Continuing w/ Grok:
OK, Brian E, thanks! You are a BIG GOVT proponent and humble me is some kind of “anarchist,” but ain’t sure yet since the list of types is rather long…
There should be small government so there isnt chaos as we saw across the length and breath of this land in 2020
Glad I could help.
What have I written that leads you to believe I’m a Big Govt proponent?
There’s this pesky thing called human nature that renders libertarianism/anarchism unrealistic.
Brian E
Spoken like a true Big Govt proponent, ‘Brain‘! 😉
“There is naught but power.”
So speaks those who worship at the altar of cruelty.
“It is not enough that I should win, others must suffer.” often attributed to Genghis Khan
Karmi,
I was going to respond but martin has done so far more wittingly.
“There are some ideas so absurd, that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them.” George Orwell
The Kermit has never paid attention to what Brian E has written since Kermit started posting here it seems; to label Brian E a Big Government proponent is laughable. Which leads this reader to conclude that the humble Kermit isn’t humble at all.
I think i read bells diatribe back in the 90s* which included the space traders which became a showtime episode aliens come to earth and the world allows them to take them back as slaves, the signs of a deranged mind, 40 years after brown
*i think i was prompted by a commentary segment
This was a man of respect to obama, as i noted above this was the message he relayed at the u chicago to his pupils some two years later one of the breitbart people picked up the trail
@Geoffrey Britain – humans are natural born killers. Ask Genghis Khan if you don’t believe humble me.
As to – ‘humans are natural born killers‘ – it is the Rule of Law and Big Govt proponents that/who override Mother Nature and call such killers – “Murderers.”
GC™ rushes to aid Brian E – is that a first?
Hitler in Munich shortly after WWI was a Communist
Hitler then joined the National Socialists
Mussolini was Italy’s most famous Socialist pre WWI – he was editor of Avanti! -Italy’s premier Socialist publication
Anyone calling Trump either a Fascist or a Nazi is guilty merely of projection or just ignorant and I have never run into a Democrat who is remotely knowledgeable about anything of importance except their job.
Well thats not quite correct from my understanding hitlerwas on the right he was a spy from the army into the workers party which was in part about nationalization and breaking up of estates the SA was largely of that bent
Did he join the thule society which was backed by industrial barons at that time
Of course its an absurd argument specially considering the recycler of the argument, has basically said ‘the terrorist have a point’
Critical law theory is nothing more than another way to subvert a democracy that is also a meritocracy. In other words, it’s a part of the Gramscian march through our institutions. It’s meant to undermine everything that made this country worth living in.
Along with destroying our legal system, the Democrats (Progressives) are certainly following Alinsky’s eight steps to topple a (free) nation.
“1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.”
Those eight steps are all part of the Democrat agenda.
It’s later than we like to admit. The enemy is within and never rests. As the Gipper once said, “It’s a time for choosing.”
Karmi doesn’t pay attention much, such is the wont of a troll.
Divert attention from that, much?
NPA – Not Paying Attention
This idea of Bell’s and of Critical Legal Studies in general – that law is a sham and only about power – is an excuse for subsequently making it a sham in pursuit of power.
–neo
Chiming in with Insufficiently+Sensitive that this is spot-on.
I share the postmodern insight that much high-minded rhetoric is actually a cover for the lust for power. It’s the Planet of the Apes, don’t you know.
Somehow, however, postmodernists never aim that particular beam of insight upon themselves.
Postmodernists seem to hold themselves exempt from any interest in power. Yet postmodernists have been phenomenally successfully in accruing power. First, in philosophy, then in the arts, then in critical legal studies, then in academia in general, now in the real world political realm.
It’s a pretty cute grift. And lethal.
Karmi:
By the way, the term “lawfare” refers to indicting a political opponent through charging them with something that requires an enormous stretch of the law rather than a clear and easily-proven violation. It involves coming at your opponent with a Beria-like “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” mentality.
neo
Very common under the Rule of Law & Law Enforcement…well, at least more common than most realize.
I think Lawfare is more of a (as you said) – “an enormous stretch of the law“.
Just in an Anarchist+Devil’s Advocate mood on the “Critical Legal Studies” topic…
I had both Daniel Farber (1L – Constitutional Law) and Suzanna Sherry (3L – Federal Jurisdiction) as law professors when I attended the University of Minnesota Law School (class of 1992). [I also started the student chapter of the Federalist Society there in 1990.] I bought “Beyond Reason” when it came out in 1997 and had to wonder why neither had ever given any indication of being against CLS when I was attending. Professor Farber, in particular, seemed to be fully compliant with this corruption of legal education. Professor Sherry gave fewer indications of her views, but certainly never spoke out against the crits (to my recollection). Perhaps the years of working in that poisonous institution changed their perspectives and inspired the writing of “Beyond All Reason” .
“Today I voted Yes on an Amendment that ‘Legalizes recreational marijuana for Floridians and out-of-state visitors 21 and older.’” Karmi
This gets more complicated than you think. We are in construction. People have shown up high, expecting to enter residences and operate tools. Because it has its “medical” cover, it’s not the same as showing up drunk. Of course, we’ve had to send someone home and risk legal action. And our condo community, successfully a “smokefree environment”, personal and communal–now not when it comes to marijuana. I’m here to tell you, “skunk weed” is far more odious than tobacco, pipe or otherwise.
@Sharon+W
After a poor criminal career I decided to go into legal activity. Having been taught the basics of electricity in prisons—plus being the inmate electrician in prisons—I eventually got a free world electricians job after several more close calls with the Law.
Some years afterwards whilst working in a new panel I accidentally stuck a screwdriver into my hand/finger area. Electrical companies owner was taking me to some medical clinic and said he would pay for it – because he knew I smoked marijuana (NEVER on the job) and that there would be problems for his workman’s comp and possibly me (something like that-??). I quit smoking it after that.
Personally, I always thought that eating chocolate should be a felony—ten years in prison for first time criminals, then Life without Parole for the second conviction.
People gobbling that poison down like pigs—dark brown crap looking junk all over their teeth and around the mouth’s edges, plus it’s bad for their health.
Was that too “complicated” for you? 😉 That’s what the Rule of Law is about, i.e., one segment of a society forcing their beliefs down the throats of others – whilst using the power of BIG Government to enforce those laws & to convict those who break them…
This is great stuff. I need to read this book sometime. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, in their “seminal” Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, devote a few pages on Sherry and Farber. They work their undies in a bundle to mangle Sherry and Farber’s reasoning. The latter pointed out in their book that Jews and Asians seem to be doing pretty well socio-economically and they’re historically discriminated against just like blacks. So perhaps something other than systemic racism might be at work?
Here is Delgado and Stefancic’s retort: “[T]he crits replied that if Asians and Jews succeeded despite an unfair system, this is all to their credit. But why should pointing out unfairness in universal merit standards, like the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), bespeak a negative attitude toward members of those groups? As the crits saw it, Farber and Sherry confused criticism of a standard with criticism of individuals who performed well under that standard [emphasis mine].”
In other words: an utter load of rubbish and they totally miss (or ignore) the point. Nowhere do Farber and Sherry accuse anybody of criticizing individuals or a group of people. This is what passes for reasoning under the spell of postmodernism.
I had the good fortune of having great law professors with strong political views such as the late Antonin Scalia and Charles Whitebread, yet in their classrooms none of this was evident. Their focus was educating us on becoming good analytical lawyers and not soldiers for a cause.
Karmi,
So you’re in favor of the law of the jungle? Might makes right?
The strong do what they will and weak suffer what they must.
Cicero: I believe Miguel was responding to Karmi’s vote for legalization in FL.
Recreational marijuana use was legalized in Massachusetts a few years ago (can’t be arsed to look up the year). There are at least three dispensaries within a mile of my house in western MA. One used to be an auction house, another used to be a bar/grill, and the third used to be a charity shop. I don’t know how many there are within a ten-mile radius, but it’s a lot. It seems like every strip mall has a marijuana outlet. They’re getting to be as common as Dunkin’ Donuts. The roads into Great Barrington, MA–where elites from NYC and the east coast vacation in the summer–are lined with “artisanal cannabis” stores. Not a good thing, in my view.
The humble Kermit rants about the Rule Of Law and claims to have been an electrician, that is rich. The National Electrical code is very, very prospective about what is and is not allowed; violate the code and the humble Kermit can get unsuspecting innocent people killed (or himself, it is hard being green (with envy)). And of course there are exams and licenses for electricians. It must have been eternal torment for the humble Kermit to be under the Code. But the Kermit conflates chocolate, marijuana, and lives and property of others; catch me if you can.
GC™ can be sooooo boring so often…
Yawrate
Works that way in War – in a lot of prisons, and in a lot of places here on Earth.
Perhaps I am not a firm as Mother Nature on ‘Survival of the Fittest’, but I can’t argue very well against ‘Her’.
Without a lot of pondering on your question – I will say that the Rule of Law seems like a *Major* failure (Trump for one recent example), as well as the many previous attempts at the King’s Law, and other attempts by mankind at making laws dating back to at least the Code of Urukagina. With that is mind – Mother Nature’s ‘Survival of the Fittest’ looks quite reasonable…
Boring?
You be (or face) the judge, after all, life is a prison to some.
@Karmi, what do you propose as an alternative to law?
There’s two things laws are supposed to do:
Make people act right and punish them when they don’t
Give people a way to settle their differences without violence
What’s your alternative and how does it accomplish those things better than what we have now?
In the law, crimes are either Malum in Se, or Malum Prohibitum. Bad in itself, or bad because it is prohibited. The Ten Commandments give a good start at defining Malum in Se. Malum Prohibitum is the sort of harmless bookkeeping inaccuracies that got Trump convicted in NYC of dozens of felonies, and, in my view, legalization of pot. I voted for it in CO, and don’t regret my vote. If you are going to have Malum Prohibitum crimes, they should be defined democratically, as pot usage was in CO. Why ban pot, when you aren’t banning alcohol? Is one really worse than the other? Historically, we probably would consider our Founding Fathers to have been raging alcoholics (with alcohol consumption in the White House probably peaking under Jackson. But George Washington was one of the, if not the, biggest makers of spirits in the country). Meanwhile one of the big reasons for initially banning pot was its connection with Hispanic migrants. And opium, with Chinese immigrants. They were anti-immigrant oppression, more than anything. Booze is fine, because Washington made it, but pot and opium are bad because Mexicans and Chinese did them.
Yep, because what any society needs are more ways for it’s citizens to be not cognizant, in operating motor vehicles, trains, or airplanes, or in walking, talking, and voting.
Hi Niketas Choniates
Have been asked that here before, and don’t recall my answer—tho it was probably something like ‘Too many humans like the “Nanny State” and/or BIG Govt to change from the Rule of Law now.’
You said:
“Make people act right” – huuum, that brings up immediate problems, IMHO. Who gets to decide what is right? The people who don’t like marijuana or the people who don’t like chocolate?
I liked this from Grok ‘n me at October 25, 2024 at 6:18 pm:
Some commenters here claim that Trump is being treated unfairly by the Rule of Law, tho the same commenters ignore the fact that Trump had earlier tried to get his upcoming presidential candidate in trouble with the Law—by requesting Ukraine to provide evidence so Biden could be prosecuted here in America…so to speak of marijuana and chocolate.
I have mentioned several issues under the Rule of Law that I experienced. I have mentioned how counties in the same state administer the Rule of Law differently—where states in the same country administer the Rule of Law differently.
Basically, there is probably no “alternative” to the Rule of Law when it is *BELOVED* by so many.
MostMany Americans couldn’t survive without BIG Govt protecting them.Do you know how many Laws are under the Rule of Law? Probably no one does. Someone here pointed to an article awhile back that said (Paraphrasing) – there are so many Federal Laws that everyone is breaking one of them.
Yeah, there is no fixing the Rule of Law, just as there was no way to fix the King’s Law before (other than moving elsewhere), and Ditto all the way back to the Code of Urukagina.
Karmi said previously that he was just playing “devil’s advocate”, but I’ll play anyway.
Looking back to the settling of the west, what was the first thing a group of people forming a community did? Build a church and hire a sheriff.
By the way, what was the penalty for theft under the Code of Urukagina?
Brian E – please don’t misquote me:
“Anarchist+Devil’s Advocate” has nothing to do w/ my opinions on the disastrous Rule of Law here in America…
UPDATE: I did a poor job of expressing my meaning – here ‘n there in this thread – so my meaning wasn’t clear enough…
He didndunuffin that’s why his nappies are forever twisted about going before the judge. He had to work and comply with the National Electrical Code, not the Kode of Kermit; more fuel for rants about rules.
FJB bragged about interfering in the investigation by Ukrainians into Burisma corruption, and the humble Kermit turns that against The Great Orange Whale. Quid quo pro, remember that hoax NPA (Not Paying Attention) Kermit?
Our trolls aren’t what they used to be.
Karmi, here was your comment, in response to something Neo had written:
Please explain how that comment applies to the Critical Legal Studies topic.
@Karmi: Yeah, there is no fixing the Rule of Law, just as there was no way to fix the King’s Law before (other than moving elsewhere)
Okay, you’ve moved elsewhere, a bunch of people have come with you, and all of them are waiting to hear you explain what your alternative to the rule of law is, how it will make people behave right and allow people to settle their differences without violence. They all know how law works now and like you are unhappy with it, but they need those two basic problems solved.
A hush falls over the crowd, and you say… what?
Soo-cawled Crishtian GC™ of the R-hurd of shmeeble bleet-blats is also into “nappies”?!
@Karmi: I think you ought to ignore om. He’s just trying to get you rebuked by neo and he’s stooping to racial slurs now to do it. Only neo knows why he’s exempt from minimal standards of civility, but as long as that holds true, the only winning move is not to play.
Just scroll by like he’s not there. That’s worse for him than any zinger you could come up with, and easier on neo who then doesn’t have to police the comments.
Niketas:
The humble Kermit won’t respond to substantive questions about actual alternatives to The Rule of Law any why it is better than The Rule of Kermit (anarchy).
Our trolls aren’t what they used to be.
That enough for today, lots to get done before the fall rains come. Enjoy.
Brian E
That ‘Just in an Anarchist+Devil’s Advocate mood on the “Critical Legal Studies” topic…‘ was in reference to October 25, 2024 at 6:45 pm comment:
That Devil’s Advocate part of the Anarchist+Devil’s Advocate was in reference to natural born killers being turned into Murderers by Rule of Law and Big Govt proponents. I don’t believe that people should just kill anyone they want to—but, I could be wrong since Mother Nature seems otherwise.
That comment was in the “Critical Legal Studies” thread. Yes, I know it all could’ve been phrased better, but that is how I phrased it at that time…my fault.
GC™ – do all Christians at your church behave as you do?
Niketas Choniates 🙂
I am a humble hermit so that question can’t be answered.
Have already had my say at October 26, 2024 at 1:07 pm. Thanks for the civil questions, but I am about done in this thread…
@Karmi: Too bad, I was hoping to hear what it was, in case it was new to me and changed how I thought about things.
The sun has set, time to put away all the tools, and Kermit did not answer Niketas’s question. He did have time to question my faith; such is how trolls roll.
Didndunuffin doesn’t stop if you are not African American. The law is unjust, the police are corrupt, … anarchy is better ….. Authority is the problem?
Karmi, you probably really know this already, but sometimes in bears repetition:
Evolution by natural selection is NOT “survival of the fittest”. That implies an active role for “Nature” to achieve a goal, such as bigger teeth, longer claws, bigger antlers, etc.
Evolution is really passive, and the species that survive are radomly by happenstance those who are best ADAPTED to a changing or changed environment.
Now, humanity (as ultra social animals) has also introduced societies and norms and culture into the mix. Evolution of cultural practices throws a wrench into the evolution cogs, since culture is quite subjective and variable as to what seems to be good for survial. Plus culture can be maintained or changed on a very rapid time scale, compared to the normal path of genetic impacts, etc.
I was going to say something about the concept of genetically based group evolution, but right now I will not go down that distractive path.
GC™ – you have no “faith” to question – since you are the perfect example of what a Christian Hypocrite is…
Kermit won’t respond to substantial questions about the Rule of Kermit, the tyrany of anarchy.
One needs only to review the rapid rate of change vis a vis the issue of Homosexuality. For thousands of years it was considered illegal. But then the legal challenge began. One year it is illegal anywhere anytime, and shortly afterward it is only illegal in public places. Then there are some very ugly nudist parades and voila–now it’s completely legal anywhere anytime. Shortly after that, the Protestant churches were forced into accepting homosexuality, homosexual bishops, homosexual marriage, etc. Do you need me to recount how our children are being MANDATED to observe this now “natural state of affairs” in early childhood public school education? How parents are now living in fear of loosing their children through the “legal system” in case they don’t accept homosexuality as “normal”? How long did it take for that complete turn around of events?
From the time the well-organized and well funded effort to “change the law” to today has been, I believe, just sixty years. I have not read the books being discussed here, but I am quite certain that San Francisco was the center of this legal movement. Most likely funded in large part by Hollywood.
I mentioned here before that sometime between 1971-74 an entire group of applicants sitting for the law degree in Northern California failed the ethics segment of that exam. My memory on this is faulty because I was not involved with the law, but where there is some smoke there is . . .
When I go back in my mind and try to find more information, what I remember the most is that there was a name to that group. I can’t remember the name for certain, but the name “Hastings” keeps coming back. Could it have been that the group that failed were graduates of the Hastings School of Law ?-I am sorry I cannot remember the details better. It was just mentioned at lunch one day with some acquaintances in San Francisco.
You would find it very interesting to search for “Hastings Law School” at wikipedia.
its been about 30 years since the whole mainstreaming of homosexuality has been moving at light speed, the clinton administration certainly had a part decisions like colorado v romer, the media went whole hog in parallel, will and grace and other tv shows, ‘the love that won’t speak it’s name’ is the one that won’t shut up, and after obergefell, in 2013, they skipped toward transgenderism because why not, ‘love not hate’ then bake the cake, or we will bankrupt you,
the fundamental fact, is men (and women) know the Truth, and they deny it, and God leaves them to their delusion, sexual immorality is by no means the only variety, and those of binary even less so, but we see the insanity in richard levine and samuel brinton, who are not only bereft of common sense but ethics
‘thou shalt not steal’ among other things, of course if the world treats Christianity and Orthodox Judaism as an absurdity, well something else fills the vacuum, certainly in Christian countries, in Western Europe, the strong faith of Islam is filling the pews, because the Church of England is hollow,