Reposting a comment I made a few days ago, since it’s still relevant:
I was curious about the flag, so did a little reading. Apparently the “Appeal to heaven” is referring to John Locke’s writings regarding the right to revolution:
And where the body of the people, or any single man, is deprived of their right, or is under the exercise of a power without right, and have no appeal on earth, then they have a liberty to appeal to heaven, whenever they judge the cause of sufficient moment. And therefore, though the people cannot be judge, so as to have, by the constitution of that society, any superior power, to determine and give effective sentence in the case; yet they have, by a law antecedent and paramount to all positive laws of men, reserved that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind, where there lies no appeal on earth, viz. to judge, whether they have just cause to make their appeal to heaven.
(Second Treatise of Civil Government. John Locke)
Locke’s contention was that no man had inherent power to regulate or restrict divine arbitration in civil affairs. Even in dire circumstances, he alleged, natural rights transcended the political process.
Locke’s contention was that no man had inherent power to regulate or restrict divine arbitration in civil affairs. Even in dire circumstances, he alleged, natural rights transcended the political process.
So, in the context of today, he’s basically arguing for SCOTUS to be replaced with a religious tribunal and any secular constitution with “natural” (read: religious dogma) law. THAT doesn’t sound like something a SCOTUS judge should be advocating either…
Reposting a comment I made a few days ago, since it’s still relevant:
I was curious about the flag, so did a little reading. Apparently the “Appeal to heaven” is referring to John Locke’s writings regarding the right to revolution:
(Second Treatise of Civil Government. John Locke)
Locke’s contention was that no man had inherent power to regulate or restrict divine arbitration in civil affairs. Even in dire circumstances, he alleged, natural rights transcended the political process.
Too bad it’s been repurposed as a symbol for Christian Nationalism
Well it was explicitly anti-secular to begin with, so never something a SCOTUS judge should be flying regardless of the christofascists adopting it.
So, in the context of today, he’s basically arguing for SCOTUS to be replaced with a religious tribunal and any secular constitution with “natural” (read: religious dogma) law. THAT doesn’t sound like something a SCOTUS judge should be advocating either…
Yes.
Yes, what?
What’s extra funny is that Locke invested in the slave trade. Slaves, the men who are deprived of their rights.
It makes sense when you realize that they didn’t think black people were people.
Aye. Liberalism, inconsistent since its inception, huh?