PROEM & POEM No. 150 - John Locke and Francis Schaeffer / Part 4
Why prioritized the right to consent or dissent as “firstly and gravely”? For any list, enumeration, bill, or declaration of rights, whether by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Eleanor Roosevelt (as first chair of UN Commission on Human Rights), are nothing more than political arrangements, justified only if unanimously consented else transgressions simply legalized. Thusly imperative, such conditions must be well founded on the only actual right as preferred and practiced by every human being since time immemorial so to reiterate; the propensity and preference therefore right to consent or dissent on literally all matters.
With confidence it can be said, the full extent and broader application of his theological insight eluded Francis Schaeffer, just as the full extent and broader application of any discovery eludes the discoverer. There is yet an invention ever conceived that was not innovatively implemented, modified and enhanced by others immediately, subsequently and ceaselessly. Likewise, ideas and thoughts are pondered by hearers and readers alike, immediately, subsequently and ceaselessly transforming into something more. Simply, one’s idea or thought is an extension of another’s idea or thought, thus every thinker stands on shoulders of thinkers present and past. Obvious of course the consistently uninterrupted dynamic, it is often forgotten as it is remembered, therefore the temptation to unquestionably accept a yonder conclusion as final.
Correctly, Francis Schaeffer should be commended for theologically identifying the one sin Covetousness preceding all other sins. For if the individual kills, steals, bears false witness (lies) and more, he/she have already coveted then presumed well before the arrogance and act. This equation is consistently so.
Correspondingly, John Locke should be commended for philosophically identifying Life, Health, Liberty, Possessions, Property too as rights, then logically implying the individual perception of harm per dissent as the one determinant of all transgressions against the same rights. For if the individual consents to the same action or arrangement, then no harm done, no rights molested. This equation is consistently so.
Comparatively, if another transgresses the individual’s rights hence the individual’s dissent, the transgressor have already coveted then presumed prior to the arrogance and act. By such transgression, not only are the individual’s Lockean rights certainly molested, firstly and gravely disregarded, grossly disrespected the Singular Human Right to Consent or Dissent on all matters, as exercised, elected and expressed per the Peculiar Human Ability to Reason. This too is an equation as consistently so.
Correctly, Francis Schaeffer should be commended for theologically identifying the one sin Covetousness preceding all other sins. For if the individual kills, steals, bears false witness (lies) and more, he/she have already coveted then presumed well before the arrogance and act. This equation is consistently so.
Correspondingly, John Locke should be commended for philosophically identifying Life, Health, Liberty, Possessions, Property too as rights, then logically implying the individual perception of harm per dissent as the one determinant of all transgressions against the same rights. For if the individual consents to the same action or arrangement, then no harm done, no rights molested. This equation is consistently so.
Comparatively, if another transgresses the individual’s rights hence the individual’s dissent, the transgressor have already coveted then presumed prior to the arrogance and act. By such transgression, not only are the individual’s Lockean rights certainly molested, firstly and gravely disregarded, grossly disrespected the Singular Human Right to Consent or Dissent on all matters, as exercised, elected and expressed per the Peculiar Human Ability to Reason. This too is an equation as consistently so.
Concisely, preceding all harm as individually perceived is covetousness as individually conceived.
Why prioritized the right to consent or dissent as “firstly and gravely”? For any list, enumeration, bill, or declaration of rights, whether by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Eleanor Roosevelt (as first chair of UN Commission on Human Rights), are nothing more than political arrangements, justified only if unanimously consented else transgressions simply legalized. Thusly imperative, such conditions must be well founded on the only actual right as preferred and practiced by every human being since time immemorial so to reiterate; the propensity and preference therefore right to consent or dissent on literally all matters.
---
Passion so pursued, prior perused within all’s purview
Breakthroughs incrementally, since antiquity first knew
Obliquity oft prevail, oddly amidst the ubiquity of Truth
For popular the theories o'er arduous inquiries by old sleuths
---
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Copyright © 2020 by D.C. Quillan Stone
No comments:
Post a Comment