SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson: One makes arguments to persuade. Arguments based on a common religious belief are going to...
  • Kevin: Here are the truths from which we can not escape. SSM involves a pledge. It’s a pledge of committed...
  • Truth Unites... and Divides: Tom Gilson to Nikolai Volk: “Wrong. Obviously wrong. Blazingly, glaringly, wrong....
  • Bret Lythgoe: I think that it’s fair to say that we have people on both sides of the SSM “debate”,...
  • Nikolai Volk: Okay, this could help clarify things. Suppose we did what I want the state to do, and not regulate...
  • Tom Gilson: No, Nikolai. I find that in the public sphere, Christians are advocating for a severely watered down...
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 10:30 AM

    Let me commend to our readers the work of noted Christian apologist John Locke on the topic of liberty and happiness. His recent work on human understanding is, perhaps, wrong on innate ideas, but attempts a consistent description of human capacity in a Biblical framework.

    Who knows if his comments on government (in his second treatise) will prove influential? Many young people, one thinks of the colonials, have been much interested in his work.

    I suspect that before moving forward on this topic most of us will have to account for the work of our Brother in Christ: John Locke.

    3 Comments

      dac
      March 9th, 2010 | 11:10 am | #1

      care to offer up one piece of current us law that Locke would disagree with (in your opinion)

      I would be curious, as Locke was very interested in the “consent of the governed”, which he put as majority vote.

      John Mark Reynolds
      March 9th, 2010 | 11:33 am | #2

      Wouldn’t the DC “gay” “rights” bill be a perfect example of something Brother Locke would oppose?

      dac
      March 9th, 2010 | 12:18 pm | #3

      To be clear – DC gay rights bill allows same sex marriage – that’s the law we are discussing. If not, please clarify.

      I would argue Locke would have no problem with the law

      First, clearly, it complies with his concern of the social contract – the consent of the governed. This bill was not “forced”, instead, it was the actions of a duly elected govt body, which could vote to change it again, should that be the desire. If the people disagreed, they can “vote the rascals out” and change the law.

      Property rights are a big (biggest?) issue of Locke, I do not see any issue there

      As to Liberty, I see no conflict with Locke’s views on that issue

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact