The Law of the Common Good

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Feb 10, 2012 at 12:20

And by your title line, you have come to the base argument of all history: the rule of whose law? Is this not the innate struggle of every human being that ever existed, or will ever exist-to whom do we submit our right to live as we see fit?

It is by your own observation that Scandinavia appears to have the best governmental environment for 'peaceful' coexistence for the moment; and on the surface this does have such an appearance. But what have they surrendered to in order to have this condition. Are they democratic, socialistic; or are they in a category of their own. America is called democratic by some, yet it is plain to see that what the founding agents originally envisioned has been legislated and judicially rendered unrecognizable to their original vision and is hardly an example to completely model, if at all by some standards.

Now I have no doubt that by your associations with the people of Scandinavia you have come to appreciate what they appear to have, being that there is sixty years of non-violent interrelations with their neighbors, even Russia to the east. My mention of the Tamil presence is meant as a warning; that even as the United States harbors such and the like here in the west, such are waiting like quiet carcinomas, looking for the best opportunities – just watching; and waiting while everything seems so serene.

As for the accords that were negotiated in Oslo, it was done in the Scandinavian realm (and not Antarctica); one might think for the very reason you have proffered, that it does seem that the Scandinavians have a line on peaceful interrelations. What I am saying is that the 'peace' accord that was negotiated was nothing more than 'hudna' to the 'Palestinians' and the Norsemen should have left well enough alone if they had hopes of not being infested by Tamil insurgents and the like.

But you have you own perceptions of some of these things as we can see in the response, to which I leave further discussion for a latter time, maybe. Yet I will move to the end and answer your posting line: 'the rule of whose law?' The rule of law is that compact by a common people with a common goal for the common good is engaged and practiced by all of like concern. In actuality, we can offer the Scandinavian model is one example of this, right? But you mention Mosaic Law; and too many do not understand the purpose of Mosaic Law and do not understand what its real purpose is. As can be demonstrated by your reference to Israel, even they have proved it is impossible to live a life under Mosaic Law unless one understands it.

You have misunderstood me if you think that the 'peace of the grave' is the desired outcome of this discussion. I have another peace in mind, one that is Biblically based and allows for my humanity to be eclipsed by the love of Jesus Christ. It supersedes the imposition of Mosaic Law and provides a more permanent mindset that transcends the Scandinavian model of living in peace with one's neighbor.

And if one thinks that the Scandinavian 'peace' model is impervious to the outside influences such as the Tamil expatriate and other such ilk, run an internet search of all the terror plots that are insinuating themselves there. All is not as it seems. The anarchy may not all be home grown, but all I was inferring is that Scandinavia is not immune.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".