The holocaust and revisionists

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

So? What has that to do with the Nuremberg lynching party? Can you show evidence of that?
ISAW:
I must ahve missed that, please post the url to the post where you do that.
The topic of this thread is 'The Holocaust and Revisionists' not your pet theories.



So, why did you address the topic on numerous ocassions if you are not interested in it?
Do you want me to repeat what I have said to you again on this?


[ISAW] this is the point I mane on that:
1. Double standards in behaviour and jurisprudence

2. Scientific basis for believing the WWII holocaust happened.

I pointed out the two did not have to be connected and I brought up Babi Yar as an alternative to discussing Polish and German concentration and extermination camps.


[Eri]
If someone is to be prosecuted and put to death for something there better be a real law covering it and there had better be real evidence and proper procedures or else that is a lynching. I much prefer justice to your inexpressible notions of 'Natural Law'.

[ISAW]
What Law was christ Tried under? What about Dreyfuss? surely they had law then. But they made a mistake with him didnt they? Likewise many people have been put to death without trial or law. Christians in ancient Rome; Cambodians under the Kymer Rouge; albanians; Jews ; gypsies. Others have been allowed to die through inaction or killed off. the Irish great Famine; American Natives... To suggest that the introduction of written laws rids the world of these transgressions of the natural law is not proven.


[snip]

That is nonsense. Show me one document that establishes the legality of any of these charges? Show me one international agreement to which all sovereign state subscribed which creates categories like 'crimes against peace' or 'crimes against humanity' prior to the London Conference.


[ISAW}
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html

The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the "laws of humanity," as reflected throughout history in different cultures.

This in itself is an appeal to natural law. But note 1907 is BEFORE WWII which was BEFORE the Nuremburg trials!

Here is part of the Preamble:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood.
[end quote]

"laws of humanity" and "laws of nations" . Now transgression of law is a crime. Transgressing the law of humanity is a crime against humanity. eh?

ISAW

[Eri]
Yes, it was you who brought it up. Do you suffer from amnesia?
[ISAWS original words]
Quote:
Now after WWII the Nuremburg Trials were set up. they were backed (mainly) by the Americans (though some Supreme Court US justices viewed them as a farce). anyway the first thing a court must refer to is it's raison d'etre. [the following was highlighted]The court was founded on the idea that killing jews was wrong and that the German parliament was wrong in spite of being soverign.[end of bold highlighting]

[Eri]
The problem is not mine, its yours: that statement is demonstrably false. In fact its not written anywhere.

[ISAW]
This is rather disingenuouis of you!
I withdrew the particular sentence you highlighted in black! and I clarified EXACTLY what I meant by that statement. I showed the appeals to natural law made by jackson. I have since also shown you the natural law jurisprudence of Nuremberg through the natural law basis in the 1907 Hague preamble. I explained what I believed and whay I had no problem with that. I withdrew it in any case even in case I might have by design or by accidenct made an unsupported claim. I REVISED the position.

You replied to my withdrawal acknowledging it! NOW you refer to somewthing that was withdrawn as if it is still a claim. You are a sneaky customer indeed. You contradict yourself and display double standards and when called to withdraw unsupported material you still allege it is true. At the same time you insist that others should revise their position if they have no supporting evidence to offer! Then when someone withdraws clarifies or revises something and you acknowledge that you later return to it as if the claim is still being made.

Your highlighting of words which were ALREADY REVISED highlight in this forum how dishonest and egotistical sneaks operate.

ISAW

[Eri]

No I'm not. I'm talkng about international law as it stood in 1945. We are talking about the Nuremberg lynching party, not your pet theories.

[ISAW]
"Time immemorial" and "Natural Law" are not pet theories. they are established legal entities.

[eri]
I belivee that the Nuremberg trials were an abomination and what's more I can prove it.
[ISAW]
Do that in another thread. I wont debate the Nuremberg trials here and now.

[eri]
It exists in that part of your mind called personal opinion and stop SHOUTING.
I presume this is some kind of a joke? Strange sense of humour you have.
The etymology of jurisprudence is not 'natural law.'
jūris-prūdentĭa - the science of law, jurisprudence




http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2325390


Look up a legal dictionaey not a Latin one! You are making an argument about law not about Latin.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=natural+law&type=1
natural law
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises. 2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.

jurisprudence
n. the entire subject of law, the study of law and legal questions


Natural Law is an entity in jurisprudence.

I think you are desperately clutching at straws in yet another bid to build a strawman.[/QUOTE]
[ISAW]
And I think you made claims about Lachout you cant support. thats where I came into this thread and thats where I am staying until you WITHDRAW or SUPPORT the claims with evidence.

Readers note: Eri already knows this but Evidence is NOT a suggestion to a german language website contains a court judgement. Nor is it more unsupported material cut and pasted from a revisionist site run from someone who was on the run himself.

what evidence is: Evidence IS a link to an OFFICIAL document not personal opinion or MORE unsubstiantiatled makey uppey documents (and Nizcor gives plenty of these llinks OUTSIDE their site indeed Nizcor even lilnks to revisionist sites but they dont likk to Nizcor who do you think of those two is disaplaying an open mind?).

ISAW

[Isaw]
I am not going to debate about Nuremberg

[Eri]
That's pretty obvious! "Discretion is the better part of valour" and all of that, eh?[/QUOTE]

[ISAW]
Another sneaky disingenuous trick of yours i see!

when I arrived here I pointed out to others that one should avoid debating suggested on nitty gritty subjects like for example trablinka. In my experience of skepticism people arrive with a heap of doccuments on say wheel marks the Moon hoax and ignore anythink else. thats why I suggested Babi yar. I even stated thats why I suggested it. I repeatedly stated i did not intend to go into your claims about Nuremberg at this time. I have no doubt you think you have a clever load of dicuments prepared but I wont entertain them.

Now you suggest I am a coward and avoiding the issue of Nuremberg. I ALREADY TOLD YOU I am not going into Nuremberg. You can believe what you want as to why I am not I ALREADY TOLD YOU why not but believe whatever fantasy takes you fancy. I am NOT debating Nuremberg at this time. I will tell you when I want to. I am not being discreet about that.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

Eriugena -

I'm intrigued and I've a simple question:

Why do you spend so much time concerned about the Third Reich and the crimes it's alleged to have committed?

- robin.

That's a good question and I dont mind answering it. The Holocaust as a phenomenon which is represented in countless ways everyday is hugely signifcant.
1. We should be concerned about it if we are concerned with truth.
2. We should be concerned about it because of its politcial-moral importance.
3. We should be concerned about it because it represent a new quasi-religious phenomenon which tolerates no heresy or expressions of disbelief.

Here are some reasons why the H story justifies our interest regardless of our views on the veracity of its claims.

Many critics both revisionist and non-revisionist have denounced the use/abuse of the holocaust as moral/political fig-leaf for zionism, and, as an instrument for milking vast sums of money from countries and institutions. Much of this has been documented in Norman Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry - http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres4/NFHolindustry.pdf
Both Finkelstein's parents were former inmates of a concentration camp and he became interested in the economic exploitation because he knew that people like his parents were being used to enrich powerful organisations and vast numbers of people were claiming to be survivors prompring Mrs Finkelstein to say that if all these people survived who, then, did the Nazis kill?

However, there is a deeper cause for concern in the moral and political implications. The Anglo-American alliance regularly invokes WWII especially the image of the evil Nazis and Hitler as a justification for their actions. Enemeies are demonised prior to carpet bombing being unleshed on defenceless countries - Milosevich was another Hitler; Saddam was another Hitler, Hitler was evil, therefore we must stop them by whatever means. Its a crude equation that works on a very basic level but it works. Implicit i these appeals is the claim that the US-UK alliance is 'good' because it defeated 'evil' in WWII. The post-war world order is justified by appeal to this defeat of 'evil' by the forces of 'good.' These kinds of claims justify us looking closely at what this reputation for good and evil rests on. The holocaust story is an important part of the post-war justification for the war and for post-war actions aross the world.

Similarly the H is used as justification for a neo-colonialist state which is based on ethno-supremacism and expropriation of the native population; the "Canaanites". It is used to disarm criticism by erecting a taboo. Criticism of Israel = anti-semitism = evil Nazis = gas chambers. Anti-Zionism is equated with anti-semitism and the H story is dragged in to give this scenario a patina of credibility.

It is a religious phenomenon of disturbing proportions. The proclaimed truths of this new religion are enforced by law (anti-heresy laws) in many countries and it is a matter of indoctrination in many schools, particularly in the US where the holocaust is mentioned everyday in the media, there are many memorials and museums, and an ever-growing number of holocaust studies chairs popping up in universities.

This religious dimension may be the most disturbing of all. Saul Friedlander writes:

'In 1951, the Knesset chose the 27th Nisan as Yom ha-Shoah; the date was chosen to commemorate the ghetto fighters - it was chosen to be as close as possible to the date of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as well as the massacre of the Jews by the Crusaders, “forefathers of the Nazis”.'

The elevation of this to the status of a holy day renders it a founding myth for the state of Israel, in the same way as the story of the Pahraoh did in the past.

'It was because of the death of the six million, according to Rabbi Nurrock, the head of the committee [the Knesset committee to over see the whole business], that “we have been privileged to have our state.” '

So there you have it. The 6 million are the holy maryrs that give rise to the new state.

'The date chosen inaugurates a series of three closely related commemorations. Yom ha-Shoah is soon followed by the Memorial Day for the Fallen in Israel’s Jewish Wars. At sunset on that day, Independence Day celebrations begin, and the traditional mythic pattern of catastrophe and redemption is forcefully reaffirmed.'

The traditional mythic pattern. The H is only the most recent in a long line of such myths going back to the Flight from Egypt story, none of which stand close scrutiny.

'It may well be that, in Yosef Yerushalmi’s terms, the Jews, as in the wake of the expulsion from Spain, are awaiting a new metahistorical myth to give meaning to the Shoah, in the same way the Kabbalah’s cosmic myth gave meaning to the previous catastrophe.'

Now this would be fine if those who believe in these kinds of myths kept it to themselves. But they don't. In many countries this myth is enforced by laws and other measures ranging from the subtle to the violent. Revisionists are the new heretics who can be burned at the stake of 'holocaust denial' or tarred and feathered as 'deniers', 'nazis' and/or 'anti-semites.'
This is what Jurgebn Habermas, the German philosopher has to say about this new religious event, which he clearly subscribes to:

“There [in Auschwitz] something happened that up to now nobody considered as even possible. There one touched on something which represents the deep layer of solidarity among all that wears a human face; notwithstanding all the usual acts of beastliness of human history, the integrity of this common layer has been taken for granted . . .Auschwitz has changed the basis for the continuity of the conditions of life within history - and this not only in Germany.”

It gets even weirder:

'As Jean Baudrillard recently mentioned, we may be facing "a collective attempt to hallucinate the historical truth of evil . . . a desperate attempt to snatch a posthumous truth from history, a posthumous exculpation."

Wow! The supposed Incarnation changed the basis for the continuity of life within history, we still take our dating system from that supposed event. Now a new event arises to rival the Incarnation. Instead of the crucified Christ we have 6 million Christs. [We could discuss the Kabbalistic significance of the 6 (million) figure in a later post.]
Friedlander again:

"Neither is the mind left at rest when pondering the relationship between the traditional Christian attitude towards the Jews and the “Final Solution”. Does Christianity bear a historic responsibility for the Shoah, or should Nazism be considered as a fundamental revolt against the “Judaeo-Christian” interpretation of the sense of human life and history?"

Either way, one can detect an assault on Christianity here from a budding rival religion, Holocaustianity.

All quotes above taken from; Saul Friedlander in 'The Shoah in Present Historical Consciousness" from Memory, History, and the Extermination of the Jews of Europe (Bloomington,: Indiana University Press, 1993).
in ed. Michael L. Morgan A Holocaust Reader: Responses to the Nazi Extermination OUP, NY and Oxford, 2001; 276 - 290

*****
For a summary of the parallels with Christianity and this new religion see
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Holocaust/holocaustianity.htm

The High Priest of this new religion, Elie Wiesel, put it thus:
"The holocaust is a sacred mystery, whose secrets were confined to a
priesthood of survivors."

(Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, 1999, S. 211-212).
Cited at the above link.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

[Isaw]
I am not going to debate about Nuremberg

Just curious, why wouldn't a discussion of WW2 war crimes encompass Nuremberg?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Eriugena wrote:

So? What has that to do with the Nuremberg lynching party? Can you show evidence of that?
ISAW:
I must ahve missed that, please post the url to the post where you do that.
The topic of this thread is 'The Holocaust and Revisionists' not your pet theories.



So, why did you address the topic on numerous ocassions if you are not interested in it?
Do you want me to repeat what I have said to you again on this?

[ISAW] this is the point I mane on that:
1. Double standards in behaviour and jurisprudence

2. Scientific basis for believing the WWII holocaust happened.

I pointed out the two did not have to be connected and I brought up Babi Yar as an alternative to discussing Polish and German concentration and extermination camps.

This is true, the two do not have to be connected (in the sense of number 2), however if you want to understand the Holocaust pehnomenon you have to include the study of Nuremberg. You are in agreement with Robert Faurisson on the previous point. He believes that anyone researching this should cut to the chase and proceed directly to the buildings alleged to be gas chambers and get stuck into the technical-chemical evdience. His point being that if something is not technically or physically possible then it cannot have happened, unless of course you want to attribute it to a miracle!

[Eri]
If someone is to be prosecuted and put to death for something there better be a real law covering it and there had better be real evidence and proper procedures or else that is a lynching. I much prefer justice to your inexpressible notions of 'Natural Law'.

[ISAW]

What Law was christ Tried under?

There is no evidence that such a person existed outside of the Christian literature. There are even internal problems in that literature as to the historicity of Jesus.

What about Dreyfuss? surely they had law then.

Yes, he was prosecuted under some law or other. I don't know which, but I'm pretty sure they did not invent one just to get Dreyfuss the way it was done in London in 1945. They admitted their error later 9in respetc of Dreyfuss). That's what revisionism is trying to achieve in respect of the other trials.

Likewise many people have been put to death without trial or law.

This is a patently invalid attempt to set up an argument from analogy. The question is about pseudo-law, not errors based on real laws or lynchings based on no laws.

Christians in ancient Rome;

This is a disupted area. Be careful.

Cambodians under the Kymer Rouge;

How does this compare to Nuremberg?

albanians; Jews ; gypsies. Others have been allowed to die through inaction or killed off.

So what is the comparison with Nuremberg?

the Irish great Famine;

Was that an act of deliberate killing?

American Natives...

They used laws to suppress the Indians and attacked the Indians as acts of war.

To suggest that the introduction of written laws rids the world of these transgressions of the natural law is not proven.

Strawman again. Who has suggested such a thing? Btw, you still have to argue for existence of natural law.

[snip]

That is nonsense. Show me one document that establishes the legality of any of these charges? Show me one international agreement to which all sovereign state subscribed which creates categories like 'crimes against peace' or 'crimes against humanity' prior to the London Conference.

[ISAW}
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/crimes-against-humanity.html

This does not meet the request. You have failed to show any legal instrument for the categroy of 'crimes against humanity.' You can easily show me such instruments in respect of war crimes and that is what Iam asking for in respect of the two other categories arbirtararily invented by th victors in London, 1945. (hint: you will search in vain)
Here is what your site says and which supports a point I made earlier:

After World War I, the Allies, in connection with the Treaty of Versailles, established in 1919 a commission to investigate war crimes that relied on the 1907 Hague Convention as the applicable law. In addition to war crimes committed by the Germans, the commission also found that Turkish officials committed "crimes against the laws of humanity" for killing Armenian nationals and residents during the period of the war. The United States and Japan strongly opposed the criminalization of such conduct on the grounds that crimes against the laws of humanity were violations of moral and not positive law.

The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the "laws of humanity," as reflected throughout history in different cultures.

This is the author's comments in that article. Its wrong as well because the preamble does not mention 'crimes against humanity' anywhere. Try again.

This in itself is an appeal to natural law. But note 1907 is BEFORE WWII which was BEFORE the Nuremburg trials!

There is nothing in that document about natural law.

Here is part of the Preamble:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.

They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the Regulations adopted must be understood.
[end quote]

Nothing about 'crimes against humanity' nor about 'natural law'

"laws of humanity" and "laws of nations" . Now transgression of law is a crime. Transgressing the law of humanity is a crime against humanity. eh?

Sophistical interpretation.
The laws of humanity means the laws that prevail throughout all the nations of the world, i.e the 'laws of nations'. This means that people are entitled to protction under the law of the land wherever they may be. It cannot mean natural law for that is a Judeo-Christian concept with some Stoic background and the whole of humanity does not subscribe to those prinicples.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

[Eri]
Yes, it was you who brought it up. Do you suffer from amnesia?
[ISAWS original words]
Quote:
Now after WWII the Nuremburg Trials were set up. they were backed (mainly) by the Americans (though some Supreme Court US justices viewed them as a farce). anyway the first thing a court must refer to is it's raison d'etre. [the following was highlighted]The court was founded on the idea that killing jews was wrong and that the German parliament was wrong in spite of being soverign.[end of bold highlighting]

[Eri]
The problem is not mine, its yours: that statement is demonstrably false. In fact its not written anywhere.

[ISAW]

This is rather disingenuouis of you!

We will see in a moment.

I withdrew the particular sentence you highlighted in black! and I clarified EXACTLY what I meant by that statement.

That's a claim which is yet to be made good.

I showed the appeals to natural law made by jackson.

Where?

I have since also shown you the natural law jurisprudence of Nuremberg through the natural law basis in the 1907 Hague preamble.

No you haven't, see my most recent post in response.

I explained what I believed and whay I had no problem with that. I withdrew it in any case even in case I might have by design or by accidenct made an unsupported claim. I REVISED the position.

You replied to my withdrawal acknowledging it! NOW you refer to somewthing that was withdrawn as if it is still a claim. You are a sneaky customer indeed.

You are the sneaky one, my friend. This is why I reposted it:

Quote:
Now after WWII the Nuremburg Trials were set up. they were backed (mainly) by the Americans (though some Supreme Court US justices viewed them as a farce). anyway the first thing a court must refer to is it's raison d'etre. The court was founded on the idea that killing jews was wrong and that the German parliament was wrong in spite of being soverign.

[ISAW]
Yes that is what I wrote. I dont have a problem with it but it seems you do. Particularly the last sentence. so I withdraw the "The court was founded on the idea that killing jews was wrong and that the German parliament was wrong in spite of being soverign." bit since that is not written in the charter. I meant that there was an international need to respond and that was the basis for the drawing up charter you mentioned but I may have given the impression that the words "killing kews is wrong" were actually written into the charter. Mind you killing jews is wrong even if it was not written into it. wAnd to be clear when I stated "killing" I meant "genocide" and "jews" also includes other groups e.g. gypsies

That's the sneakyness of your move. You state something that is false, then you "withdraw it" (you seem to do a lot of "withdrawing") but then you insinuate that it is my problem! No it is your problem. That claim is demonstrably false. I don't want you to withdraw it, I want you to ackowledge that it is false. That is why I reposted it and in bold.

You contradict yourself and display double standards and when called to withdraw unsupported material you still allege it is true.

No I do not. I say very clearly that unless it is shown to be false I have no problem with it.

At the same time you insist that others should revise their position if they have no supporting evidence to offer!

Where's the problem? You claimed something about Nuremberg,it is easily shown to be false. Fine, we move on to the next topic, its no big deal unless you want to turn this into a personal attack.

Then when someone withdraws clarifies or revises something and you acknowledge that you later return to it as if the claim is still being made.

You tried to perosnalise it by saying I had a problem. I don;t have a problme with it, its juts plain FALSE.

Your highlighting of words which were ALREADY REVISED highlight in this forum how dishonest and egotistical sneaks operate.

Your attempt to deflect attention away from your false claims and dodgy interpretations masquerading as accepted fact has become tiresome and distasteful.

Eriugena

There is a distinct danger that things are going off track and becoming personal. I am not blaming anyone.
This is a summary of what I maintain.
The points I want to make about Holocaust Revisionism are as follows.

I begin this with a fomal proposition.

Proposition: Holocaust Revisionism is not only valid and justified, but necessary.

The starting point for showing this is the Nuremberg procedures and subsequent trials. It is quite easy to show that these trials are nothing more than a travesty and an abomination, what a contemporary judge of the USSC described as a "high grade lynching party." They are victor's justice wrapped up in pseudo-legal garb.

Two main features of Nuremberg can be shown quite easily: the lack of legality for these proceedings, and; the quality of evidence. Once this is shown, it is necessary to show how holocaust history is almost entirely dependent on the evidence produced at Nuremberg and the judgements issued and the way those judgements and evidence have become canonical for other trials and for historical accounts. In other words the creation of the holocaust story and the Nurmeberg trials are bound up with each other.
----
I may add to this later on.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

[Eri]

No I'm not. I'm talkng about international law as it stood in 1945. We are talking about the Nuremberg lynching party, not your pet theories.

[ISAW]

"Time immemorial" and "Natural Law" are not pet theories. they are established legal entities.

What claims are you making for this theory? Established legal entity coudl refer to Hammurabi's laws. What precisely are you claiming for your natural law theory?
[eri]
I belivee that the Nuremberg trials were an abomination and what's more I can prove it.

[ISAW]
Do that in another thread. I wont debate the Nuremberg trials here and now.

I suggest you take your pet theories to another thread becasue Nuremberg was being discussed before you arrived.
[eri]
It exists in that part of your mind called personal opinion and stop SHOUTING.
I presume this is some kind of a joke? Strange sense of humour you have.
The etymology of jurisprudence is not 'natural law.'
jūris-prūdentĭa - the science of law, jurisprudence




http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2325390

Look up a legal dictionaey not a Latin one! You are making an argument about law not about Latin.

Your site claimsthat s the etymology. Etymological disputes are resolved by philology and dictionaires.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=natural+law&type=1
natural law
n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles. Natural law assumes that all people believe in the same Judeo-Christian God and thus share an understanding of natural law premises. 2) the body of laws derived from nature and reason, embodied in the Declaration of Independence assertion that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 3) the opposite of "positive law," which is created by mankind through the state.

So your theories of natural law are based on the Bible?

jurisprudence
n. the entire subject of law, the study of law and legal questions


Natural Law is an entity in jurisprudence.

If you believe in the Bible I suppose. At most, it is a theory.

ISAW

[Eri]
This does not meet the request. You have failed to show any legal instrument for the categroy of 'crimes against humanity.' You can easily show me such instruments in respect of war crimes and that is what Iam asking for in respect of the two other categories arbirtararily invented by th victors in London, 1945. (hint: you will search in vain)
Here is what your site says and which supports a point I made earlier:

[Isaw]

this is more duplicity! You asded where it had anything LIKE crimes against humanity. You used the word LIKE! I showed you. Now you switch the claim back to the actual words "crimes against humanity". Now did you in your own words ask where ther is anything like crimes against humanity mentioned? You DID didnt you?

ISAW

Turley wrote:

Just curious, why wouldn't a discussion of WW2 war crimes encompass Nuremberg?

I didnt suggest tyey woudnt. I stated it is not necessary to diccuss the trials. I also suggesteed holocaust have a load of argument s ready on Nuremberg which a a waste of time for me and so I prefer it to be a waste of time for them by not discussing the trials when they want to and turning rather to the unsupported dodgy claims they make. e.g Lachout was in the Austrian Military Police in 1948

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

[Eri]
This does not meet the request. You have failed to show any legal instrument for the categroy of 'crimes against humanity.' You can easily show me such instruments in respect of war crimes and that is what Iam asking for in respect of the two other categories arbirtararily invented by th victors in London, 1945. (hint: you will search in vain)
Here is what your site says and which supports a point I made earlier:

[Isaw]

this is more duplicity! You asded where it had anything LIKE crimes against humanity. You used the word LIKE! I showed you. Now you switch the claim back to the actual words "crimes against humanity". Now did you in your own words ask where ther is anything like crimes against humanity mentioned? You DID didnt you?

Before you get on your high horse, this is what I asked:

Show me one document that establishes the legality of any of these charges? Show me one international agreement to which all sovereign state subscribed which creates categories like 'crimes against peace' or 'crimes against humanity' prior to the London Conference.

Now you choose to interpret 'like' here in a way that certainly does not qualify your vain attempts to misread the preamble to Hague. The 'like' here does not mean resemble (which your examples do not) but functions as an introduction to these examples. Its a sign of your desperation that you are reduced to trying to exploit an ambiguity in the word 'like.'

I will also add that this matter had been clearly spelled out to you earlier:

Its charter states that it was set up to prosecute "crimes against peace" an invented category; war crimes, a recognised category, and "crimes against humanity", another invented category. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2598096&postcount=263

So don't play the innocent.

btw, this is really too much coming from someone who has been altering their demands as they go along.

Eriugena

You might also like to return to the claims about natural law because I was not too impressed with the material you posted and your lack of response to the criticisms I made. This tactic you have adopted; the go-on-the-attack-and-hope-they-don't-notice-that-I-am-trying-to-deflect-attention-from-my-weak-arguments, is doomed to failure.

Turley

Eriugena wrote:

That's a good question and I dont mind answering it. The Holocaust as a phenomenon which is represented in countless ways everyday is hugely signifcant.
1. We should be concerned about it if we are concerned with truth.
2. We should be concerned about it because of its politcial-moral importance.
3. We should be concerned about it because it represent a new quasi-religious phenomenon which tolerates no heresy or expressions of disbelief.

The large amount of time required, that would include running down rabbit trails, combined with the disapproval of others that accompanies an unpopular position, demonstrates not just concern for truth but your deep love of truth.

robindch

Eriugena -

Your search for the truth is commendable and the large number of very fine words which you have written about the moral implications of *this*, or the political implications of *that* are worthy sentiments.

But I am entirely confused as to why, for example, on the one hand you criticize the Allies for setting up ad-hoc courts of one kind or another, and claim that this is illegal, and, on the other hand, fail entirely to criticize Hitler and his contemptible, murderous goose-stepping rabble, for committing crimes far more lethal than the hanging of a few Nazis. This is moral equivocation upon your part at is most invidious (presumably, btw, you do not contend that the German army didn't invade Poland, Holland, Russia, etc, etc?)

Also, your contention that the Holocaust (why do you use the letter 'H'?) is used as a colonial fig-leaf is naive in the extreme, given the wide support which Europe in general has for the Palestinians and the close-to negligible support that Israel has in this part of the world, outside of a few bone-headed christian fundies.

If you are as concerned as you write that you are, about what you refer to as 'religious dimensions' and religious thinking, then I suggest that you turn your attention away from the Nazis and towards the various religious institutions peddling their wares around here, including the catholic, protestant, presbyterian, baptist, evangelical (etc, etc, etc) churches and deal with them and their spook-merchant priesthood -- a far more worthy cause than defending Hitler and his actions, and you might even find a few supporters here.

Finally, I came across this occasionally rather foul-mouthed, occasionally hilarious site a few days back. People may, or may not, find it entertaining:

http://thewaronfaith.com/aq_hard_core.htm
http://thewaronfaith.com/aq_ingersol.htm

...etc...

- robin.

Poisonwood

Turley wrote:

The large amount of time required, that would include running down rabbit trails, combined with the disapproval of others that accompanies an unpopular position, demonstrates not just concern for truth but your deep love of truth.

Not convinced of that for a minute...and I'm not really referring to Eriugena here. Willingness to put in time and put up with disapproval does not as a matter of course demonstrate a love for the truth... it could just as likely indicate a hate-driven fanaticism. We do not have access to information on Eriugena's motives, intentions, personality, psychological status etc etc etc and therefore cannot make any claims about his love for the truth or otherwise. Just a thought ... it goes for all of us.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

Eriugena -

Your search for the truth is commendable and the large number of very fine words which you have written about the moral implications of *this*, or the political implications of *that* are worthy sentiments.

However . . .

But I am entirely confused as to why, for example, on the one hand you criticize the Allies for setting up ad-hoc courts of one kind or another, and claim that this is illegal, and, on the other hand, fail entirely to criticize Hitler and his contemptible, murderous goose-stepping rabble, for committing crimes far more lethal than the hanging of a few Nazis.

What crimes have you got in mind? This is all very question-begging because revisionism is about trying to determine as closely as possible what actually happened. Speaking of crimes, I could bang on about the fire-bombing of German and Japanese cities, not to mention the nuking of two cities by the sainted-holy-allies-who-can-do-no-wrong. I could produce here a doucment ordering the supprssion of mention of the use of phosphorus because it was illegal. I could talk about the British invasion of Iran, the mining of Norwegian waters, the Soviet invasion of Poland and the Baltic States, various atrocities by allied troops etc, etc.

This is moral equivocation upon your part at is most invidious (presumably, btw, you do not contend that the German army didn't invade Poland, Holland, Russia, etc, etc?)

That would be absurd. Look, we have been bombarded with the "evil Krauts" for over 60 years now. The purpose of revisionism is to investigate what this designation is based on and whether ir is deserved or not. Revisionism in this sense is not substantially different from the efforts to have the cases of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four reviewed. Did you oppose that? The difference between those cases is that whereas there were offences for which they (B6 & G4) were falsely convicted, there is no credible evdience that there were gas chambers (weapon) or 6 million dead (the body).

Also, your contention that the Holocaust (why do you use the letter 'H'?) is used as a colonial fig-leaf is naive in the extreme, given the wide support which Europe in general has for the Palestinians and the close-to negligible support that Israel has in this part of the world, outside of a few bone-headed christian fundies.

Then you should go back and read what I posted above. The Israeli's themselves place a heavy weight of moral justification on the H. You might also follow the link provided to Finkelsteion's book where he deatils these aspects of the matter. (H. because it saves typing out the word holocaust). You must also realise that without the US Israel would be finished so I wouldn't dismiss those American fundies so lightly. Its hard for us here to get a sense of how much holocaustomania there is in the US. Why this is so, is, I would have thought, pretty obvious. I think it is laughable in the extereme for you to call me naive!

If you are as concerned as you write that you are, about what you refer to as 'religious dimensions' and religious thinking, then I suggest that you turn your attention away from the Nazis and towards the various religious institutions peddling their wares around here, including the catholic, protestant, presbyterian, baptist, evangelical (etc, etc, etc) churches and deal with them and their spook-merchant priesthood -- a far more worthy cause than defending Hitler and his actions, and you might even find a few supporters here.

That's fine as far as it goes. But I am also alerting you to the rise of a new and extremely intolerant religion, holocaustianity. Does that not give you pause for concern?

a far more worthy cause than defending Hitler and his actions

What actions have you in mind?

Eriugena

Poisonwood wrote:

Not convinced of that for a minute...and I'm not really referring to Eriugena here. Willingness to put in time and put up with disapproval does not as a matter of course demonstrate a love for the truth... it could just as likely indicate a hate-driven fanaticism. We do not have access to information on Eriugena's motives, intentions, personality, psychological status etc etc etc and therefore cannot make any claims about his love for the truth or otherwise. Just a thought ... it goes for all of us.

I have to agree with you on this although I am grateful to Turley for their kind comments.
You are correct to say that the board does not know me nor my motives beyond what I have said. But the substantial contetn of my posts must be judged on their own merits - the quality of evidence and argument - and not on my personal details, for that would be a fallacious argumentum ad hominem.
And yes, that applies equally to all of us.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

ISAW wrote:

[Eri]

No I'm not. I'm talkng about international law as it stood in 1945. We are talking about the Nuremberg lynching party, not your pet theories.


[ISAW]
I am talking about the holocaust and revisionism. It is not necessary to discus Nuremberg to keep OT.

[Eri]
What claims are you making for this theory? Established legal entity coudl refer to Hammurabi's laws. What precisely are you claiming for your natural law theory?


[ISAW]
that is exists. It is referred to in law but it is not necessary for the term Natural law to be cited for it to exiat. Did the Earth only begin to movie when people like Galileo started mentioning a motive earth? Are the only things that are wrong wrong only when some law is written about them?


[snip]
So your theories of natural law are based on the Bible?

[ISAW] I never stated that.

If you believe in the Bible I suppose. At most, it is a theory.

Like the WWII holocaust is a theory and a fantasy and all made up? You really believe that do you? I am astonished at your double standards. You claim there is no evidence for the holocaust and if others do not produce evidence they should deny the holocaust happened but when YOU produce a document by Lachout and are asked to back it up and promise to do so and produce NO EVIDENCE you insist it is what you believe anyway and wont withdraw your false claim. How can you then ask others to question the holocaust happened when you REFUSE to question the documents you can not produce evidence to back up?

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

I have to agree with you on this although I am grateful to Turley for their kind comments.
You are correct to say that the board does not know me nor my motives beyond what I have said. But the substantial contetn of my posts must be judged on their own merits - the quality of evidence and argument - and not on my personal details, for that would be a fallacious argumentum ad hominem.
And yes, that applies equally to all of us.

Ad hominem is entirely do making an argument based on you contradisting your own personal beliefs. One reason in asking you if you believe in the Bible for example might be to acertain whether or not that belief implies a contradiction with holocaust denial. If you believe the Bible is true you can not also believe the story in it about the holocaust of the Hebrews by the Egyptians did not happen without contradicting yourself.

And related to that as to whether Natural Law existed in history the Egyprian civilisation collapsed in history. One could assert that the Egyptians either violated some natural law that applied to civilizations, and could therefore have averted the collapse had they been more prudent, or they underwent a change that was "historically necessary" because imposed by some natural law that human ingenuity cannot circumvent. That alternative simply states the central problem that a philosophy of history must solve. And since we are subject to the same natural laws, the problem is vital and urgent.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

You might also like to return to the claims about natural law because I was not too impressed with the material you posted and your lack of response to the criticisms I made. This tactic you have adopted; the go-on-the-attack-and-hope-they-don't-notice-that-I-am-trying-to-deflect-attention-from-my-weak-arguments, is doomed to failure.

Natural law is an established entity in jurisprudence. As I state below EGyptian society collapsed in the past. One could assert that the Egyptians either violated some natural law that applied to civilizations, and could therefore have averted the collapse had they been more prudent, or they underwent a change that was "historically necessary" because imposed by some natural law that human ingenuity cannot circumvent. One could assert that that alternative simply states the central problem that a philosophy of history must solve. And since we are subject to the same natural laws, the problem is vital and urgent.

ISAW

Asimow seems to believe in the exiatanc eof Antural Law as a legal entity.
http://www.usfca.edu/pj/articles/Nuremberg.htm


The following text:
Studying Politics:
An Introduction to Political Science

Edited by Rand Dyck
Published by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited
ISBN: 0-17-616967-9

Also refers to it.

In the Summer of 1995 there was an academic symposium on Natural Law at

are you suggesting the 14 papers in volume three here:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/vol4.html

are not about a legal entity?

Are you suggesting Schuyler M. Moore, The partner of a legal firm was off his trolly when he wrote - A Practitioner's Primer on Natural Law - and the Southern California Legal Journal were also inept in legal knowledge when they published his paper?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Ad hominem is entirely do making an argument based on you contradisting your own personal beliefs.

That's not what argumentum ad hominem means.

Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

Exposure:
Ad Hominem is the most familiar of informal fallacies, and—with the possible exception of Undistributed Middle—the most familiar logical fallacy of them all. It is also one of the most used and abused of fallacies, and both justified and unjustified accusations of Ad Hominem abound in any debate.

The phrase "ad hominem argument" is sometimes used to refer to a very different type of argument, namely, one that uses premisses accepted by the opposition to argue for a position. In other words, if you are trying to convince someone of something, using premisses that the person accepts—whether or not you believe them yourself. This is not necessarily a fallacious argument, and is often rhetorically effective.

Subfallacies:
Abusive: An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate.
Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance.
This form of the fallacy needs to be distinguished from criticisms directed at testimony, which are not fallacious, since pointing out that someone stands to gain from testifying a certain way would tend to cast doubt upon that testimony. For instance, when a celebrity endorses a product, it is usually in return for money, which lowers the evidentiary value of such an endorsement—often to nothing! In contrast, the fact that an arguer may gain in some way from an argument's acceptance does not affect the evidentiary value of the argument, for arguments can and do stand or fall on their own merits.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

One reason in asking you if you believe in the Bible for example might be to acertain whether or not that belief implies a contradiction with holocaust denial. If you believe the Bible is true you can not also believe the story in it about the holocaust of the Hebrews by the Egyptians did not happen without contradicting yourself.

What ever do you mean by this: "if you believe the Bible is true?"
The bible is a collection of disparate texts composed and collated over a period of time.
1. Do you mean by true, that it is the "Word of God?"
2. Do you mean that the "historical" content (Flight from Egypt etc) is accurate?
3. Do you mean that it is the repository of the Truth (repeats 1)?
4. All of the above?
I will grant thatthere is some truth in all literature. But as to the rest of those claims they are beliefs that I do not hold.

And related to that as to whether Natural Law existed in history the Egyprian civilisation collapsed in history. One could assert that the Egyptians either violated some natural law that applied to civilizations, and could therefore have averted the collapse had they been more prudent, or they underwent a change that was "historically necessary" because imposed by some natural law that human ingenuity cannot circumvent. That alternative simply states the central problem that a philosophy of history must solve. And since we are subject to the same natural laws, the problem is vital and urgent.

This is all a distraction. Can you actually offer any evidence or argument that there is such a thing as natural law?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Asimow seems to believe in the exiatanc eof Antural Law as a legal entity.
http://www.usfca.edu/pj/articles/Nuremberg.htm

The only reference to natural law in that article is this:

The questions raised by Judgment at Nuremberg go to the core of what we do and what we are. What does it mean to be a lawyer, professor, or judge? Do we believe in positivism, natural law, legal realism?

Nothing there about him seeming to believe in natural law. Did you read it at all?

The following text:
Studying Politics:
An Introduction to Political Science

Edited by Rand Dyck
Published by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited
ISBN: 0-17-616967-9

Also refers to it.

In the Summer of 1995 there was an academic symposium on Natural Law at

are you suggesting the 14 papers in volume three here:
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/vol4.html

are not about a legal entity?

Are you suggesting Schuyler M. Moore, The partner of a legal firm was off his trolly when he wrote - A Practitioner's Primer on Natural Law - and the Southern California Legal Journal were also inept in legal knowledge when they published his paper?

Look, I am very well aware of the discourse about natural law as I have already said to you. I am asking you for evidence and argument that there is such a thing, not evidence that some people believe in natural law (I already knew this long before you appeared). You have made two claims about this. That natural law exists, and, that natural law was the basis for the Nuremberg process. We have already established that the second claim is false, and we are still waiting to establish the status of the first claim. I am only pressing this issue because you seem to place a lot of importance on it.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

Before you get on your high horse, this is what I asked:
Now you choose to interpret 'like' here in a way that certainly does not qualify your vain attempts to misread the preamble to Hague. The 'like' here does not mean resemble (which your examples do not) but functions as an introduction to these examples. Its a sign of your desperation that you are reduced to trying to exploit an ambiguity in the word 'like.'

[Your Words ERI]
Show me one international agreement to which all sovereign state subscribed which creates categories like 'crimes against peace' or 'crimes against humanity' prior to the London Conference.

[ISAW]

I showed you terms in the peramble to the Hague convention 1907 which referred to activities similar to terms like "crimes against humanity" and which appealed to the natural law basis for opposing these terms.


I will also add that this matter had been clearly spelled out to you earlier:
[Eri here included the quote about "crimes against peace" etc. being invented]

So don't play the innocent.

[ISAW]
Crimes against humanity happeded before the term existed just as the Earth moved before any physics describing it moving existed. do you really believe that a wroing can not be committed if there is no written Law which states it is wrong?

[Eri]
btw, this is really too much coming from someone who has been altering their demands as they go along.

What demands have I altered without explicidely saying they were revised?

I demanded you produce the evidence you promised about Lachout and STILL HAVE NOT PRODUCED. But you will not withdraw you wholly unsupported claim will you?

Turley

robindch wrote:

and the close-to negligible support that Israel has in this part of the world, outside of a few bone-headed christian fundies.

Robin-
We agree again, but misguided is more polite.

robindch wrote:

...a far more worthy cause than defending Hitler and his actions, and you might even find a few supporters here.

I think it may be in error to assume that seeking the truth about WW2 history is equivalent to defending Hitler. I do not think Eriugena has defended Hitler and his actions.

If someone were to check the facts surrounding the Andy Rooney story about a war atrocity at Thekla, exmining the available evidence does not make one a supporter of Hitler's actions. I think we agree the murder of civilians in modern warfare is immoral for all sides.

ISAW

Eriugena wrote:

The only reference to natural law in that article is this:
Nothing there about him seeming to believe in natural law. Did you read it at all?


[ISAW]

My point is not whether he believe it or subscribes to it. It is that natural Law EXISTS as an established entity. He could not refer to argument it if it didnt exist could he?

[ERI]
Look, I am very well aware of the discourse about natural law as I have already said to you. I am asking you for evidence and argument that there is such a thing, not evidence that some people believe in natural law (I already knew this long before you appeared). You have made two claims about this. That natural law exists, and, that natural law was the basis for the Nuremberg process. We have already established that the second claim is false, and we are still waiting to establish the status of the first claim. I am only pressing this issue because you seem to place a lot of importance on it.

Ronald R. Garet, J.D., Ph.D.
Holder of Carolyn Craig Franklin Chair in Law and Religion Professor of Law and Religion USC
His Phd thesis was Author of: Meaning and Ending and Natural Law and Creation Stories Author of Creativity and Commitment: An Introduction to Law

Blumm, Michael C. "The End of Environment Law? Libertarian Property, Natural Law, and the Just Compensation Clause in the Federal Circuit." Environmental Law 25 (no. 1,1995):171- .

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Blackfriars, London, 1975.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentarium super epistolam ad Romanos, c.14, lect.2 (ad v.5), in S. Thomae Aquinatis Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, R. Cai, O.P. (ed.), Marietti, Turin.

St. Thomas Aquinas, In Duo Praecepta Caritatis et in Decem Legis Praecepta. Prologus: Opuscula Theologica, II, No.1129, Ed. Taurinen, Paris, 1954.

Biggar, Nigel. "Karl Barth and Germain Grisez on the Human Good: An Ecumenical Rapprochement." In The Revival of Natural Law: Philosophical, Theological and Ethical Responses to the Finnis-Grisez School, 164-83. Edited by Nigel Biggar and Rufus Black. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2000.

Biggar, Nigel. The Hastening that Waits: Karl Barth's Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Budziszewski, J. Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, Intervarsity Press, 1997.

Finnis, John. Natural Law and Natural Rights, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1980/1993.

Gierke, Otto Friedrich von. Natural Law and the Theory of Society, 1500—1800. Translated by Ernest Barker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950.

As to whether appeals were made to it At Nuremburg:

Jackson, Robert. "Opening Speech", in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, vol. ii, Proceedings, 11/14/1945-11/30/1945 [Official text in the English language], IMT, Nuremberg, 1947: Second Day, Wednesday, 11/21/1945, Part 20, 143.
Jackson, Robert. "Closing Speech", in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, vol. xix, Proceedings, 7/19-29/1946, [Official text in English language], IMT, Nuremberg, 1947: One Hundred and Eighty-Seventh Day: Friday, 7/26/1946: Morning Session: Part 2, 29.
Shawcross, Sir Hartley. "Opening Address", in Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, vol. iii, Proceedings, 12/1/1945-12/14/1945 [Official text in the English language], IMT, Nuremberg, 1947: Twelfth Day, Tuesday, 12/4/1945, Part 1, 91-4; Part 6, 106.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

What demands have I altered without explicidely saying they were revised?

I demanded you produce the evidence you promised about Lachout and STILL HAVE NOT PRODUCED. But you will not withdraw you wholly unsupported claim will you?

When you first objected to Lachout you posted this:

If you have any problems with the references then please state them.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2600633&postcount=5

With some Nizkor links to the DOEW document. I registered some objections, none of which you addressed to any satisfaction. I posted more detailed objections which you then snipped. It seems I can state my objections but you will just ignore them and continue withyour unsubstantiated claims about natural law and whatever else takes your fancy.

btw, there as been porgress on the Lachout front but I am not going to reveal it until we clear a few things up first. I could insist that we dispose of the natural law question before moving on to the still outstanding matters of the Lachout business.

I was being more than reasonable. I said I would drop Lachout altogether even though the only problem now seems to be the 1998 Case at ECHR. You would not have that but seem to insist that I adopt a formula of words of your choosing (withdrawl etc). I will not be dictated to in that fashion nor will I be threatened by you. I have repeatedly offered to set aside Lachout. You are just lookig for ways to avoid dealing with the substantive issues.

However if you insist on this, then I will hold you to your own standards. The discussion between us cannot advance until such time as:
1. you establish the existence of natural law.
or
2. you acknowledge my more than reasonable offer to set aside Lachout.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

Ronald R. Garet, J.D., Ph.D. Holder of Carolyn Craig Franklin Chair in Law and Religion Professor of Law and 'snip'

I asked you to establish the existence of natural law becasue that is your claim. All you do is post evidence of other people's beliefs about natural law. You made the existence claim now back it up.

Demonstrate the existence of natural law.