It is difficult to know where to start in response to your claim that "Clarence Thomas thinks he is Moses", but I will begin with this:
You said: "In his lecture, Justice Thomas took a very different and disturbing approach. He argued that the Declaration of Independence was not to be interpreted or analyzed critically. He repeatedly condemned scholars, journalists, and lawyers for inventing “fancy language” to “hide in the tall grass” and distort the plain language of the document. The Declaration is what it is. “All men are created equal” by God, and Thomas clearly knows which men those are and what it means for them to be equal. He offered no textual explanation, no serious historical analysis of the writers of those words, and no reasoning for why equality meant no slavery for Justice Thomas, but also no gay marriage and no immigrant due process."
The ones "hiding in the tall grass", per Justice Thomas, are the ones who lack devotion. Why? It is almost as if he was speaking directly to you when he said, "It is because too few of us reflect on and reflect the courage and commitment of that final sentence of the Declaration". The premise of the Declaration is easy: we are created equal under God. Therefore, the textual explanation you seek isn't necessary. But more than that, Justice Thomas explained to you that "Somehow, without formal education, the older people knew that these God-given or natural rights preceded and transcended governmental power or authority [...] The ideas of the Declaration were so powerful that our nation could not coexist with the contradiction created by the great evil of slavery", but...well...I guess you weren't listening?
Instead, you jumped to the liberal issues du jour: transgenders and immigrants (or something to that effect). I imagine you subscribe to the Constitution as a "living document" to change with the times...To me, that sort of view is an unconstrained vision that attempts to change the world as you (or the intellectuals like Woodrow Wilson) see fit. Rather, the opposite is true...it is the Declaration of Independence (and its foundations) that tell us man is a fallen angel whose great challenge is to live within a constrained vision. Please listen to Thomas - and James Madison - when they are telling you: “if men were angels, no government would be necessary."
You asked, "What makes his Declaration the correct one for everyone?"
I must disagree with many of the comments and some things in the article. I suggest you skip all this writing below and go to listen immediately to the YT audio overview of article at near very end.
When I discovered Saint Thomas Aquinas apologetics and the general foundation of Traditional (pre-1958) Catholic Dogma, Doctrines, Theology, Divine Revelation (Biblical Records), and much of the bit's and pieces that connect on to the amazingly uniformed theologically cemented together so that at each aspect of the traditional religious practiced and ceremony has root in the 4-dimentional vivid colored Stained-Glass of infinite resolution of Completeness and when the sun shines on it and through it the entire universe sparkles ..
Okay - sorry. I'm remembering how all my University and personal Philosophy studies of the forever fractured deconstructed parts of parts of parts of .. what originally was ripped out of the Self-supporting complete form that is unity and sanity and anchored in reality of Creation, what a breath of cool air in a summer filled with frustration and constant failure to find anything but chaos directed paths the post Aquinas Philosophy.
The post Aquinas Philosophy self-disintegration into unTruth, unJust, disOrdering, toward the Godless unachored truthless ruleless quantum chaos .. seem to have parallels with the part of the Catholic Church that broke away at the Protestant Revolution and how those Protestant Church fractured and fracture over and over again until each person's cafeteria religious church on one and as time and aging advances each of those Churches die when their only member dies ..
Natural Law is universal: accessible by reason even to non-believers. As scripture states, “Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature the things in the law” (Romans 2:14-15). Thus laws that protect life, worship, family have binding force on all human persons.
Much of the Catholic Theology is anchored in Natural Law, and when I hear the ignorant (sorry - poorly or incorrectly informed) say that laws and judgement that is built on the basics of Natural Law principles and the Catholic Theology that is internally consistent and built on such anchors
I have a propose for a word-wide Abrahamic Justice system that is outlines with significant details in the following article. Ignore the Office of Pope-King sections that would likely be a distraction and from what I read in this article and comments the concept of such an office would likely trigger an intellectual crippling emotional retardation and deeply indoctrinated instant assumption of bad-intent and mentally weak and unable to stand and stop hiding under blankets with the replacement back-bone that 'Faith' provides and etc, ..
.. but perhaps I suffer from the intellect darkening of the sin of uncharitably based assumptions?
Perhaps you can prove me wrong by not skipping the details of the office of Pope-King also.
It's long Past time all God-Fearing men worldwide join - We need an Abrahamic World-Wide Justice System, to start .. then a Traditional pre-1958 Pope-King-Man (of course!)
The Abrahamic System, 9 Orthodox Justices; 3 Christians, 3 Jews, 3 Muslims. A Top world Court, And One in every world region. Shared Commandments, Natural Law, Freedom of Hearing, Conversion, Worship, ...
In a legal system, there is room for interpretation — a kind of grey zone where disagreement can exist. But when authority is framed as coming from a higher plane, that grey zone begins to disappear. that raises a deeper question: what becomes the basis of those decisions, and who determines the meaning of that higher authority? Without a shared, accountable framework, interpretation doesn’t vanish — it simply shifts into the hands of those claiming to speak for it. At that point, the issue is no longer just legal interpretation, but who holds the power to define truth itself — and what recourse exists for those who disagree.
Reading his comments today has been thoroughly disgusting. Few people have displayed more contempt for the people and ideals which made their prosperity possible than Clarence. To know you were in the room, bearing defiant witness to this coward's attempt to blow a less than subtle dog whistle about violent christian nationalism gives me a small joy. Thank you for your composure in the face of a man who has betrayed our justice system.
Also, the Declaration is not a legal document....it's not the Constitution, nor was it meant to be. Supreme Court rulings should be based on the law not a document whose purpose was to justify our separation from England.
I agree with most of Professor Suri’s critique of the Thomas lecture. The comments with which I disagree are those in which the Professor states or implies that “faith” is simply a propositional given rather than an interpretation of either a sacred text, or probably a translation (which itself is an interpretation) of a sacred text. Of course, whether a particular text is sacred is a matter of interpretation. We are told that Moses had experience which he perceived or interpreted as messages from God, but he also reportedly argued with God - or his perception of what he understood God to be threatening or proposing in a particular situation. In short, Moses, like other Hebrew Scriptures prophets and many other people through the ages and today, claimed that his insights were directed by an understanding or perception (I.e., an interpretation) of his discerned will of God. But that discernment reflected the context of the situation in which God’s perceived will was to be executed. That of course is interpretation, not a self executing command. Thomas, who is but one of nine humans assigned the task of interpreting various texts, of which, ironically, the Declaration of Independence is not one, but he asserts and claims, as the Professor points out, that he alone can accurately interpret those texts. That of course is both factually wrong and might be heresy.
It is difficult to know where to start in response to your claim that "Clarence Thomas thinks he is Moses", but I will begin with this:
You said: "In his lecture, Justice Thomas took a very different and disturbing approach. He argued that the Declaration of Independence was not to be interpreted or analyzed critically. He repeatedly condemned scholars, journalists, and lawyers for inventing “fancy language” to “hide in the tall grass” and distort the plain language of the document. The Declaration is what it is. “All men are created equal” by God, and Thomas clearly knows which men those are and what it means for them to be equal. He offered no textual explanation, no serious historical analysis of the writers of those words, and no reasoning for why equality meant no slavery for Justice Thomas, but also no gay marriage and no immigrant due process."
The ones "hiding in the tall grass", per Justice Thomas, are the ones who lack devotion. Why? It is almost as if he was speaking directly to you when he said, "It is because too few of us reflect on and reflect the courage and commitment of that final sentence of the Declaration". The premise of the Declaration is easy: we are created equal under God. Therefore, the textual explanation you seek isn't necessary. But more than that, Justice Thomas explained to you that "Somehow, without formal education, the older people knew that these God-given or natural rights preceded and transcended governmental power or authority [...] The ideas of the Declaration were so powerful that our nation could not coexist with the contradiction created by the great evil of slavery", but...well...I guess you weren't listening?
Instead, you jumped to the liberal issues du jour: transgenders and immigrants (or something to that effect). I imagine you subscribe to the Constitution as a "living document" to change with the times...To me, that sort of view is an unconstrained vision that attempts to change the world as you (or the intellectuals like Woodrow Wilson) see fit. Rather, the opposite is true...it is the Declaration of Independence (and its foundations) that tell us man is a fallen angel whose great challenge is to live within a constrained vision. Please listen to Thomas - and James Madison - when they are telling you: “if men were angels, no government would be necessary."
You asked, "What makes his Declaration the correct one for everyone?"
My answer: thousands of years of history.
I must disagree with many of the comments and some things in the article. I suggest you skip all this writing below and go to listen immediately to the YT audio overview of article at near very end.
When I discovered Saint Thomas Aquinas apologetics and the general foundation of Traditional (pre-1958) Catholic Dogma, Doctrines, Theology, Divine Revelation (Biblical Records), and much of the bit's and pieces that connect on to the amazingly uniformed theologically cemented together so that at each aspect of the traditional religious practiced and ceremony has root in the 4-dimentional vivid colored Stained-Glass of infinite resolution of Completeness and when the sun shines on it and through it the entire universe sparkles ..
Okay - sorry. I'm remembering how all my University and personal Philosophy studies of the forever fractured deconstructed parts of parts of parts of .. what originally was ripped out of the Self-supporting complete form that is unity and sanity and anchored in reality of Creation, what a breath of cool air in a summer filled with frustration and constant failure to find anything but chaos directed paths the post Aquinas Philosophy.
The post Aquinas Philosophy self-disintegration into unTruth, unJust, disOrdering, toward the Godless unachored truthless ruleless quantum chaos .. seem to have parallels with the part of the Catholic Church that broke away at the Protestant Revolution and how those Protestant Church fractured and fracture over and over again until each person's cafeteria religious church on one and as time and aging advances each of those Churches die when their only member dies ..
Natural Law is universal: accessible by reason even to non-believers. As scripture states, “Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature the things in the law” (Romans 2:14-15). Thus laws that protect life, worship, family have binding force on all human persons.
Much of the Catholic Theology is anchored in Natural Law, and when I hear the ignorant (sorry - poorly or incorrectly informed) say that laws and judgement that is built on the basics of Natural Law principles and the Catholic Theology that is internally consistent and built on such anchors
I have a propose for a word-wide Abrahamic Justice system that is outlines with significant details in the following article. Ignore the Office of Pope-King sections that would likely be a distraction and from what I read in this article and comments the concept of such an office would likely trigger an intellectual crippling emotional retardation and deeply indoctrinated instant assumption of bad-intent and mentally weak and unable to stand and stop hiding under blankets with the replacement back-bone that 'Faith' provides and etc, ..
.. but perhaps I suffer from the intellect darkening of the sin of uncharitably based assumptions?
Perhaps you can prove me wrong by not skipping the details of the office of Pope-King also.
It's long Past time all God-Fearing men worldwide join - We need an Abrahamic World-Wide Justice System, to start .. then a Traditional pre-1958 Pope-King-Man (of course!)
The Abrahamic System, 9 Orthodox Justices; 3 Christians, 3 Jews, 3 Muslims. A Top world Court, And One in every world region. Shared Commandments, Natural Law, Freedom of Hearing, Conversion, Worship, ...
More Here in Apologetic article, this YT mirror of audio overview of article; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NkpLdRpzrQ
--
".. By the Will of God, Our First possible 'Treatise Concerning ..' From Offices of Papal-King" https://stevenwork.substack.com/p/multiverse-journal-index-number-2228, https://archive.is/aEcrq
God Bless., Steve
In a legal system, there is room for interpretation — a kind of grey zone where disagreement can exist. But when authority is framed as coming from a higher plane, that grey zone begins to disappear. that raises a deeper question: what becomes the basis of those decisions, and who determines the meaning of that higher authority? Without a shared, accountable framework, interpretation doesn’t vanish — it simply shifts into the hands of those claiming to speak for it. At that point, the issue is no longer just legal interpretation, but who holds the power to define truth itself — and what recourse exists for those who disagree.
Spot-on, Carol. That is exactly the problem with Thomas’s faith-based jurisprudence.
Thomas is actually very progressive. Progressively taking money, favors, gifts from billionaires.
Reading his comments today has been thoroughly disgusting. Few people have displayed more contempt for the people and ideals which made their prosperity possible than Clarence. To know you were in the room, bearing defiant witness to this coward's attempt to blow a less than subtle dog whistle about violent christian nationalism gives me a small joy. Thank you for your composure in the face of a man who has betrayed our justice system.
Also, the Declaration is not a legal document....it's not the Constitution, nor was it meant to be. Supreme Court rulings should be based on the law not a document whose purpose was to justify our separation from England.
I agree with most of Professor Suri’s critique of the Thomas lecture. The comments with which I disagree are those in which the Professor states or implies that “faith” is simply a propositional given rather than an interpretation of either a sacred text, or probably a translation (which itself is an interpretation) of a sacred text. Of course, whether a particular text is sacred is a matter of interpretation. We are told that Moses had experience which he perceived or interpreted as messages from God, but he also reportedly argued with God - or his perception of what he understood God to be threatening or proposing in a particular situation. In short, Moses, like other Hebrew Scriptures prophets and many other people through the ages and today, claimed that his insights were directed by an understanding or perception (I.e., an interpretation) of his discerned will of God. But that discernment reflected the context of the situation in which God’s perceived will was to be executed. That of course is interpretation, not a self executing command. Thomas, who is but one of nine humans assigned the task of interpreting various texts, of which, ironically, the Declaration of Independence is not one, but he asserts and claims, as the Professor points out, that he alone can accurately interpret those texts. That of course is both factually wrong and might be heresy.
Wow. The Constitution as Iran’s doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, or “Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist”.