Our Fading Constellation: How Ideas Influence Society

Running head: OUR FADING CONSTELLATION 1
Our Fading Constellation
Kaleb P. Hansen
American Heritage School

OUR FADING CONSTELLATION 2
Abstract
Throughout history, great philosophers and scientists have influenced societies by their
thoughts and ideas. One such scientist, Isaac Newton, who is known for establishing the laws of
motion among other things, believed in God and that absolutes governed the physical, the
natural, and societal realms. As a result of Newton’s scientific thought, the United States
Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and other prominent documents of the time
reflected Newtonian absolutes and Divine belief. Over time, other scientists have influenced the
society around them, most notably, Charles Darwin, who is known for his work on evolution and
the origin of man. The impact of Darwin’s work and scientific thought on society reflects
Darwinian relativity and an absence of Divine design or belief. Many of our contemporary issues
are a direct result of this scientific shift away from Newtonian absolutes and a belief in God
toward Darwinian relativity. Under the umbrella of Newtonian absolutes and Darwinian
relativity, we can discover the truth regarding the current issues of abortion and same-sex
marriage. Directly or indirectly this paper will prove the existence of God through the inherent
necessity of man to have a standard come from a source higher than himself.

Our Fading Constellation
Since the dawn of mankind, a profound importance has been placed upon the celestial
objects glittering in the night sky above us. Among the pages of history, an array of cultures has
ascribed meaning to the patterns shining out from the darkness. They drew maps by them,
planted their crops by them, guided their ships by them, and built their tales and stories around
them. These familiar and constant bodies of light were known as constellations (International
Astronomical Union, n.d.). It is a well-known fact, that these constellations have remained in
their proper orbit for centuries by specific uncompromising, universal laws. What would one do
if a man were to begin to claim that these constellations no longer existed, that they had fallen
apart for no apparent reason, and that they were no longer a trusted source of guidance? Would
this be considered a sign of madness or would people start to wonder if it were true?
The world is rapidly redefining truth. Instead of looking to a central or divine source to
guide man concerning what is right and wrong, our society is strongly favoring man’s personal
interpretations and directives. This cultural ailment has arisen in all aspects of our society, but
especially within government and media. People have become their own highest authority.
Without a higher or divine authority to answer to, morality declines, ethics and values
disintegrate, and right and wrong take on a myriad of interpretations.
Most of us believe we are making our own decisions, independent of an outside
influence. We live in ignorance of the fact that the exact opposite is true -- for we are being
influenced each and every day by very powerful thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Where are these
ideas coming from? And why is an awareness of how these beliefs are affecting us important?
Being knowledgeable and having the ability to discern truth from error is important because
these ideas will either turn society down a path toward prosperity or toward bondage. The belief

systems and ideas that are accepted will largely determine the direction a society heads. Dave
Breese, expressed this very well in the book, 7 Men Who Rule from the Grave, “[these men,
Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Julius Wellhausen, John Dewey, Sigmund Freud, John Maynard
Keynes, and Soren Kierkegaard] ruled the world more permanently because they and their ideas
became gods of the mind rather than masters of real estate. For them, the battle for the minds of
men was the ultimate thing” (Breese, 1990). These men knew that if they could control the mind,
they could control the direction of nations and ultimately the course of history.
Most of the men and women of this world are actually ruled by the minds and ideas of a
select few, for good and bad. Breese continues, “Much of modern education, commercial
interaction, social planning, intellectual conviction, and even religion is still guided by the
constructs formulated by those thinkers of an earlier generation” (Breese, 1990). From the Greek
philosophers to the present day, men have pondered the effects of a central paradigm or dominant
idea and its influence on the rise and fall of nations. Unfortunately, history has also shown that
people are often unaware that they are being influenced by an idea, either archaic or
contemporary.
The Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Arab, Mongol, and British empires were all
greatly influenced by a dominant thought or idea. Major revolutionary changes throughout
history often come when a nation finally becomes conscious of what ideas are affecting them and
where it has taken them. This kind of awareness has never come when a people are on the casual,
yet slippery slope of decline, but instead has come when they are at the depths of despair,
desperate for a savior, wondering how things could have ever gotten this bad.

The Observation of the Greeks
Mankind has an inherent thirst for truth. We are drawn to ideas, especially those ideas
that resonate with something within us, something powerful and eternal. The great philosopher,
Socrates, understood this innate human gravitation. He would walk among the ancient Greeks,
teaching them with questions and expecting well-reasoned and articulated thoughts. “Socrates
liked to think of himself as merely fulfilling the function of an intellectual midwife, facilitating
the birth of ideas already conceived in the mind of the other person” (Ebenstein & Ebenstein,
1991).
Plato, another great philosopher, was one of Socrates’ students. His philosophical
influence demonstrates how a new way of thinking can influence a nation. He inherited,
recorded, and taught maxims like, “The unexamined life is not worth living” and “Truth (with a
capital “T”) is eternal and unchanging and that only a few can contemplate it after years of
systematic and rigorous training” (Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 1991). From the teachings of
Socrates, and his personal observations, Plato wrote The Republic, a book in which Plato
describes how a nation can digress as a result of the citizens succumbing to moral relativity and
libertinism.
And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power
and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to
their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having
garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and
calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and
waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his

original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and
libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures. (Plato, 1992)
Plato’s insights on the digression of a nation due to a false ideology is worth pondering, but
Cicero then builds upon this and adds clarity by teaching of a Natural Law, a true ideology a
nation must follow according to nature in order to check itself against digression.
Cicero and Natural Law
If we wish to understand Natural Law, we have to start with the life and writings of
Marcus Tullius Cicero (107-43 BC). A favorite of the American Founders, Cicero defines Natural
Law as “true law.” Even before Christ’s ministry at the meridian of time, Cicero recognized the
necessity for a law that originates from a source superior to man. Cicero writes:
True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application,
unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from
wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon
good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter
this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to
abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we
need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not
be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one
eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be
one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its
promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and
denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst

penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. (Ebenstein &
Ebenstein, 1991)
Within these insightful lines, one encounters ideas which have been echoed by the
American Founders many a time. Instead of Natural Law, the Declaration of Independence reads
“laws of nature and of nature's God” (Jefferson, 1776). These timeless lines from the Declaration
are endless in their basic goodness and universal in their application. They are a recipe for “right
reason” from the Creator himself. The recipe cannot be altered, repealed, or abandoned by
legislators or the people themselves, although many have tried. “In Natural Law we are dealing
with factors of absolute reality. It is basic in its principles, comprehensible to the human mind,
and totally correct and morally right in its general operation” (Skousen, 2006). For the Founding
Fathers and Cicero this was an epic unearthing of eternal truth.
From Socrates, Plato, and other notable Greek philosophers, as well as Roman
philosophers like Cicero surfaced the foundation of the Greco-Roman culture that has
contributed to the formation of what is now known as the Western society. It was the experience
of the Greeks, Romans, and other philosophers that prompted John Adams to proclaim, “We have
no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by
morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords
of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious
and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” (Adams, n.d.).
Adams felt, as Plato did, that by observing the history of mankind and human nature one is
directly impacted by absolute truths and universal laws, laws to which no one is immune. The
Founding Fathers felt deep in their hearts that this must be taught and applied or we as a people
would be subject to despotism, bondage, poverty, and societal devastation. But it has not just

been philosophers who have influenced civilizations, scientists have also had a major impact on
the destinies of nations.
The Impact of Science
The scientific world has continually impacted the world view of societies. From Aristotle
to Einstein, for better or for worse, the advances within the scientific world have changed society
individually, communally, and nationally. “The emergence of Einstein as a world figure in 1919
is a striking illustration of the dual impact of great scientific innovators on mankind. They
change our perception of the physical world and increase our mastery of it. But they also change
our ideas. The second effect is often more radical than the first. The scientific genius impinges on
humanity, for good or ill, far more than any statesman or warlord” (Johnson, 1983). A few
scientists have socio-politically impacted the world in prominent ways. In fact, the influence of
the scientific shift from Newtonian absolutes, a product of the writings of Sir Isaac Newton, to
the scientific shift of Darwinian relativity, a product of the writings of Charles Darwin, on
government is the genesis behind many of America’s contemporary issues such as abortion and
same-sex marriage. “Galileo’s empiricism created the ferment of natural philosophy in the
seventeenth century which adumbrated the scientific and industrial revolutions. Newtonian
physics formed the framework of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and so helped to bring
modern nationalism and revolutionary politics to birth. Darwin’s notion of the survival of the
fittest was a key element both in the Marxist concept of class warfare and of the racial
philosophies which shaped Hitlerism” (Johnson, 1983). Each of these scientists greatly impacted
the world for better or for worse with their scientific work. Each of these scientists either

directed people toward Natural Law and absolute truth or directed them toward secularism and
moral relativity.
May society never forget that America was founded upon absolutes, of right and wrong,
truth and error; a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. Over time, this foundation of absolutes
has been attacked by a rabid and rampant relativism. "All at once, nothing seems certain in the
movements of the spheres. 'The world is out of joint', as Hamlet sadly observed. It was as though
the spinning globe had been taken off its axis and cast adrift in a universe which no longer
conformed to accustomed standards of measurement. At the beginning of the 1920s the belief
began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there was no longer any absolutes: of
time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value. Mistakenly but perhaps
inevitably, relativity became confused with relativism" (Johnson, 1983). A relativistic world is a
dangerous world. The world of moral relativity is filled with fear, and the battle of the fittest.
Moral relativity dissolves the pillars of morality and prosperity which inevitably crumble under
the weight of nihilistic nations.
The New Freedom
In his book, The New Freedom, President Woodrow Wilson recalls an intriguing
conversation with a Scotsman on political philosophy and the power of a dominant thought or
idea on the generations, particularly the thoughts of Newton and Darwin. “He called my attention
to the fact that in every generation all sorts of speculation and thinking tend to fall under the
formula of the dominant thought of the age. For example, after the Newtonian Theory of the
universe had been developed, almost all thinking tended to express itself in the analogies of the
Newtonian Theory, and since the Darwinian Theory has reigned amongst us, everybody is likely

to express whatever he wishes to expound in terms of development and accommodation to
environment” (Wilson, 1913). Most of mankind is consciously unaware that a nation’s thinking
is often dictated by “the dominant thought of the age,” even if that scientific standard has adverse
consequences and may be discredited later. Many have forgotten that the dominant thought of
our American Founding Fathers, including those associated with the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, was influenced by and embodied Newtonian principles of
organization and absolutes.
Woodrow Wilson continues, “[T]he Constitution of the United States had been made
under the dominion of the Newtonian Theory. You have only to read the papers of The Federalist
to see that fact written on every page. They speak of the ‘checks and balances’ of the
Constitution, and use to express their idea the simile of the organization of the universe, and
particularly of the solar system,—how by the attraction of gravitation the various parts are held
in their orbits; and then they proceed to represent Congress, the Judiciary, and the President as a
sort of imitation of the solar system” (Wilson, 1913). The Newtonian paradigm and theory
declares the Constitution as identical to a constellation or solar system, and that the Constitution
has relied on moral and economic absolutes from its conception, just as a constellation relies
upon the absolute law of gravitation. The Constitution was calibrated to combat the avarice and
ambition of men, and was founded on standards or truths given to us by the same omnipotent and
affectionate Maker that gave us the constellations in our skies.
Unfortunately, society’s current interpretation of the Constitution, under the Darwinian
paradigm and theory, is nearly antithetical to that of the Founders. Some, however, agree that the
masses are being influenced by Darwin’s theories and that his influence is more evident today
than ever. Woodrow Wilson concurred with the Darwinian paradigm. He concludes, “The trouble

with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the
theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to
Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by
the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks,
and live…. Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society
is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop” (Wilson,
1913). It is alarming to consider that the Darwinian paradigm and theory proclaim that the
Constitution should be subject to the passions of its people, to see it as a “living organism” which
must adapt and evolve to the ever-diminishing, ever digressing standards of man. The
Constitution makes a way for amendments to draw the document closer to the governance of
Natural Law and absolute truth, like the abolition of slavery, not for it to be altered for relativistic
and incorrect reasons. A nation may progress while still adhering to correct principles, but to
evolve is to stray from those principles and wander from the word of God, becoming something
entirely different, something restless and wretched. In light of The New Freedom, it would be just
for one to take a closer look at the scientists that have thus impacted society.
Sir Isaac Newton
Sir Isaac Newton was born on January 4, 1643 in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, England.
Primarily known for his scientific publications, Newton also published a plethora of works on
theology and religion that have only recently been found. “[He is] generally regarded as the most
original and influential theorist in the history of science. In addition to his invention of the
infinitesimal calculus and a new theory of light and color, Newton transformed the structure of
physical science with his three laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation. As the

keystone of the scientific revolution of the 17th century, Newton's work combined the
contributions of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and others into a new and powerful
synthesis. Three centuries later the resulting structure - classical mechanics - continues to be a
useful but no less elegant monument to his genius” (Hatch, n.d.). Indeed, “Isaac Newton changed
the way we understand the Universe.” (BBC, n.d.). Newton is widely known for his scientific
contributions. These were indeed numerous and they revolutionized the scientific world, but in
order to fully understand the Newtonian perspective, we must also must take into account his
theological works.
Contrary to what was customary in the writing of his contemporaries, there are only two
references to God in Newton’s Principia. “Yet we now know that Newton produced a substantial
body of theological writings and that he devoted close to six decades to a passionate study of the
Bible, theology, prophecy, church history and natural theology. Newton’s theological papers total
a minimum of two and a half million words and constitute the single largest category in his
manuscript corpus” (Snobelen, 2010). Although his scientific papers made limited direct
references to God, he still credited the hand of a Maker in his work. The eminent Newtonian
scholar, I. Bernard Cohen said, “Newton’s concern with God and with the Divine Providence
was a continuing feature in all editions of his Principia” (Cohen, 1969). Newton’s scientific
works reflected his theological beliefs: that God’s commandments established moral absolutes
for mankind to follow.
In viewing Newton in a holistic light, one starts to unveil his paradigms and one begins to
understand that he was continually uncovering divine connections between his scientific and
personal studies. One has to wonder what he would say about the critical and ethical dilemmas of
our day. Would Newton support abortion? Would he agree with same-sex marriage? Or would he

preach and teach of the potential catastrophic consequences of such practices? The publications
of Locke, which build upon the publications of Newton, may have the answer.
Newton was a scientific bridge between the Greek philosophers, his contemporaries, the
Enlightenment philosophers, and the American Founders. “Ever since the Ancient Greeks,
scientists and philosophers had dreamed of discovering the mathematical laws that run the
universe. But it took the genius of Isaac Newton to really discover those laws. He created a
mathematical theory that allows us to predict how things will move under the force of gravity or
other forces. Newton used his equations to predict how the Moon goes around the Earth, and
how apples fall from trees. He showed that there really are natural laws that rule our universe.
Seeing this amazing success, the philosophers of Newton’s day asked: If there are natural laws
for how planets move, shouldn’t there be natural laws for how people should act as well? And if
so, what are these natural laws? Perhaps the most important philosopher to consider this question
was the Englishman John Locke. Locke carefully studied Isaac Newton’s new theories, and the
two men became friends, meeting and writing to each other about a variety of issues” (Cline,
2011). Although Cicero had a terrific understanding of Natural Law, that he obtained through his
own reasoning and observation of nature, it took the scientific contribution of Isaac Newton,
coupled with the works of philosophers like Locke for many people to really begin to notice the
absolutes that govern not only the physical world, but the ecclesiastical and political as well.
As influential and valuable as Newton and Locke’s theories were, there were also just as
equally influential scientists and philosophers who were bringing forth theories and evidence that
lead one away from the ideas of absolute truths and natural God-given laws. These new theories
were deceptive in their arguments for they also used terms very similar to “natural” and “law,”

but with opposing connotations. A central figure for the belief system behind relativity and
dismissing a Divine presence was none other than Charles Darwin.
Charles Robert Darwin
Charles Robert Darwin was born over 160 years after Isaac Newton on February 12, 1809
in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England. Darwin was an English naturalist whose scientific theory of
evolution by natural selection became the foundation of modern evolutionary studies. Darwin
initially upset the religious Victorian community by suggesting that animals and humans shared a
common ancestry. This and other major theories were prescribed in his infamous work, The
Origin of Species (1859). In retrospect, Darwin once said, "Considering how fiercely I have been
attacked by the orthodox, it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman" (Darwin,
1950).
Darwin may have been rejected by the religious community of his time, but his non-
religious theories appealed to the rising class of professional scientists, and by the time of his
death, his evolutionary imagery and theories had spread through most of the scientific, academic,
and political world (Desmond, 2015). So much so, that many of the conservative scholars and
philosophers of today, revert back to this diffusion and wide-spread progression of the Darwinian
ideologies in society, as being the root of the contemporary plague of moral relativism.
Darwin’s fundamental doctrines, namely the origin of man, the battle of the fittest, and
natural selection, have not only influenced the professional realms of science and research, but
they have also infiltrated our school rooms and textbooks. These very influential ideas were fed
straight into the minds of the rising generation. As Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the
school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next” (Lincoln,

2001). Infiltration of these central ideologies into the classrooms is a major reason why the
philosophy of our government today is more closely aligned with Darwinian relativism.
All three doctrines have an acknowledged place in science, but they are also directly and
indirectly connected to the modern issues and ethical dilemmas we face in our nation today.
History has demonstrated, through civilizations such as Rome, that those who adopted these
Darwinian doctrines and paradigms have eventually self-destructed, mostly because they did not
adhere to Natural Law and respect absolute truth.
The 21st century is influenced by this Darwinian ideology much more than is realized.
Society is ignorant of the far-reaching effects of this ideology. In the United States government,
one strong evidence is the legalization of immorality. What was once considered wrong has now
been overruled by our relativistic government leaders and citizens. So many of these new laws
and changes are done under the banner of progress. As a nation it is believed that these new ways
of thinking and believing are more advanced than previous generations and that society has
evolved into higher and better ways of thinking; consequently, traditional guiding principles no
longer apply. A society often justifies, rationalizes, and concedes to individual interests, rather
than examining what would be better for the whole. Human nature does not change. When a
nation removes the guiding compass of morality, a nation removes its basis for existence. The
more God is removed from society, the more men battle it out to play at being God.
The Darwinian Paradigm and Abortion
When it comes to the critical and controversial topic of abortion, it is important to look
closely at Darwin’s primary ideas; the origin of man, battle of the fittest, and natural selection.
For instance, if one wants to de-humanize an unborn human baby and its worth, one has to

abolish its divine origin. If one wants to justify a woman’s right to kill a baby, one has to show
that her body takes priority over that of the baby’s body. If the power is given to decide who
lives and who dies, including the unborn, elderly, or disabled, then one can get rid of any person
who is considered inferior or inconvenient. This mindset opens the gate to an apathetic mind, a
mind where one’s conscience no longer pricks over the horrific mutilation of a human baby, a
mind that rejects the consequences imposed by moral law.
Darwinian ideology has even found its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
has declared abortion to be a “fundamental right” guaranteed by the United States Constitution
by means of the momentous abortion case of Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973. The
decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and
that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to
terminate her pregnancy” (United States Supreme Court, 1973). Abortion was wrongly
sanctioned by the Supreme Court, which supported the Darwinian idea that women could
prioritize their irresponsible reproductive lives over the life of an unborn baby.
In the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor concurred with this Darwinian induced paradigm when she stated, “The ability of
women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by
their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Untited States Supreme Court, 1992). In her
dissenting opinion of the 2007 decision of Gonzales v. Carhart, Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg also agreed with this paradigm and wrote that excessive limitations on abortion
infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal
citizenship stature” (United States Supreme Court, 2007). These advocates say that women must
have the right to decide, to choose to have children, and to control their reproductive lives.

Jeffrey Toobin, JD, CNN senior legal analyst, blatantly stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark
of what is, in the truest sense, women’s liberation” (Toobin, 2013).
This ideology has even made it into the churches and into the interpretations of the Holy
Bible. Those who believe abortion should be legal are not just atheists, feminists, and liberals. As
a whole, the Catholic and Lutheran churches oppose abortion, but a large percentage of their
members believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, 51% of Lutherans and 55% of
Catholics to be precise (See Figure 1). The Bible, the foundational text for Christians, “despite
interpretations to the contrary, contains no explicit condemnation of abortion, and does not
portray the killing of a fetus as equivalent to the killing of a human being. In Exodus 21:22-25,
the crime of causing a woman to miscarry is treated as a property crime, whereas killing the
woman is considered murder and is punished with the death penalty” (Abortion ProCon, 2011).
According to this study most Catholics and Protestants do not think it is wrong and they justify
this by proclaiming that the Holy Bible does not condemn it.
The influence of the works of Darwin is everywhere, in the decisions of the Supreme
Court, in the claim that abortion is a necessity for women, in the majority opinion of major
Christian sects, and in some people’s interpretation of the Holy Bible. We live in a world where
the murder of eleven million people in the Holocaust is unacceptable, but the massacre of 49.3
million unborn babies is. Although not always popular, the arguments for preserving an unborn
baby are strong, legitimate, and in alignment with Newton.
The Newtonian Paradigm and Abortion
There are absolutes which govern the physical, the spiritual, and the natural; the
arguments that condemn and oppose the practice of abortion are in harmony with Natural Law

and the publications of Isaac Newton. Murdering innocent, unborn children and permitting
abortion directly conflicts with the unalienable right to life recognized by the Founding Fathers
as prescribed in the Declaration of Independence, a governing document written under the
influence of Natural Law. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that
whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles,
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety
and happiness” (Jefferson, 1776). It is one’s duty to uphold the ideals that the founders intended
for America and for which they fought. Those ideals include the protection of all life, not just
those out of the womb; and when “any form of government becomes destructive of these ends” it
is the right of the people to “alter or abolish” that government.
A unique human being with an unalienable right to life begins not at birth, but at
conception. The French geneticist, Jerome Lejeune, who discovered the chromosome
abnormality that causes Down Syndrome, and is often considered the father of modern genetics
(Pace, 1994), stated that “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human
has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human
being from conception to old age is not a matter of metaphysical contention, it is plain
experimental evidence” (McCann, 2013). In other words, a baby has a genetic identity upon
fertilization that remains unchanged throughout his or her life and this individual is entitled to
life.

Those who have been affected by the Darwinian paradigm would argue that a fetus is not
really a human being. Paige Cunningham of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity said,
“Who counts as human? Who gets to sit at the table of the human family? And who gets shoved
off to the edges, off to the margins. And we have seen enough times, from past experience, that
it’s usually the very tiny, the very old, and the very disabled or the very sick, who are often not
included within that circle of protection” (Cunningham, 2015). This perspective of selective
protection is evolutionary and corresponds to the doctrine of natural selection, but in reality there
is nothing natural about this kind of selection. The United States government views unborn
babies as human beings. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to
protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody
participating in killing an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or
attempting to kill a human being." Furthermore, the act states that an unborn child is a "member
of the species homo sapiens" (United States Congress, 2004). In addition to the Unborn Victims
of Violence Act, at least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws (NCSL, 2015).
According to state, federal, and Natural Law, killing an unborn baby, a human being with nearly
unlimited potential, is murder.
In addition to civil law, abortion defies the word of God or moral law. The Greek word
brephos is used in the Bible to refer to both an unborn child and a baby, therefore, the Bible does
not distinguish between a fetus and a baby (Francis, 2006). Before the baby is born, he or she is
acknowledged by God, as established in Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew
thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee..." In addition to this
Biblical example, there is the overall commandment given by God not to kill found in Exodus

20:13. Christianity is not the only religion to recognize the practice of abortion as contrary to
natural and moral law.
In the Hindu religion, the holy text of the Kaushitaki Upanishad states that abortion is a
comparable offence to killing one’s own parents and is against the central Hindu principles of:
ahimsa (nonviolence), the law of karma (the energy of God everywhere, comparable to the
Christian doctrine of the law of the harvest), the strict rules of dharma defined in their holy
scriptures, and their belief in reincarnation. “These four make a Hindu a Hindu and make not
committing abortion an obvious decision” (Subramuniyaswami, 1993).
The right to life is not only recognized by civil law, but by religious, moral, and Natural
Law as well. This begs the question, but what about Roe v. Wade? Isn’t abortion legal in the
United States? The 7-2 decision of Roe v. Wade made in 1973 is an example of a government
influenced by the morally relativistic Darwinian paradigm and should be overturned. Supreme
Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, in his dissenting opinion of Roe v. Wade, stated that an
abortion "is not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court
finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution..." (United States Supreme Court, 1973). In addition to
Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion, the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution
provides an auxiliary precaution, preventing states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws" (United States Congress, 1866). The Supreme Court overreached in Roe
v. Wade when it excluded unborn children from the class of "persons” (New, 2011). Under the
banner of “Pro-choice,” the decision of Roe v. Wade became more acceptable to a greater
number of people.

The title “Pro-choice” comes from a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has the
right to have an abortion. One of the flaws with this argument lies with the fact that abortion
impacts not only the woman's body, but the body of her unborn baby. “To argue that the living
fetus is part of the mother’s body defies reason: which organ of her body is it? When the unborn
child’s heart beats, whose heart is it? When the fetus’s brain waves can be traced, whose brain is
it?” (Beeke, n.d.). When a nation chooses to disregard the absolutes that govern this world and
adopt a morally relativistic attitude towards life, in all its many stages, then it is fit for
destruction. Abortion is a scourge upon America and there will be consequences for our choices.
Is not the Darwinian ideology of the battle of the fittest so present in the abortion issue as to be
palpable? “To willfully end the life of another for one’s own convenience has always been
viewed as murder” (Beeke, n.d.). It is a grievous practice and is comparable to a noiseless
infanticide or an inaudible holocaust of infants. Abortion is not the only arena in which the
Darwinian ideology reigns, it also resides in the practice of homosexuality.
The Darwinian Paradigm and Same-Sex Marriage
The publications of Darwin, specifically The Origin of Man, eroded the belief that man
was created by God. This ethical erosion paves the path for the disdain of moral truth, Natural
Law, and the commandments of God. When man becomes their own highest authority,
ungoverned by the rules of God, exalting the union of the same-sex, one ushers in the
annihilation of their civilization.
With the Obergefell decision, the Darwinian paradigm led courts to rule that same-sex
marriage is legal. Those who are governed by the Darwinian paradigm make the argument that
“traditional marriage” between one man and one woman is historically inaccurate and the

concept of marriage has evolved over time. “[T]he institution has been in a process of constant
evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual
conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that
basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras” (Barker, 2012).
Historians throw their hands up in frustration when “traditional marriage” is mentioned and ask
“when and where?” Some of their arguments even come from the Bible, saying that,
“[A]ccording to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines – and men have
taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among
American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim
world” (Barker, 2012). Just because the concept of a “traditional marriage,” has not always been
defined as one man and one woman is not historical in its foundation, does not disprove the fact
that a union of a man and a woman is and will always be the most stable structure for
childbearing and child-rearing, and is in harmony with Natural Law. Unfortunately, the ideology
can travel from the individual to the collective.
For both abortion and same-sex marriage, the Darwinian paradigm blurs the lines
between an inalienable right and a right fabricated by man for his convenience. The National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), on May 21, 2012 named same-
sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time" (Brock, 2012). The 1967
Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia stated that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights
of man” (Supreme Court of the United States, 1967). “The White House website lists same-sex
marriage amongst a selection of civil rights, along with freedom from employment
discrimination, equal pay for women, and fair sentencing for minority criminals” (Gay Marriage
ProCon, 2016). Same-sex marriage is a civil right recognized by the NAACP, the Supreme

Court, and the White House, but is same-sex marriage really a civil right or would it simply be
convenient for the advocates of same-sex marriage?
The Darwinian paradigm has persuaded public opinion of even those of faith regarding
homosexuality. According to a study done by the Pew Research Center regarding religion and
cultural issues shows that 56% of those affiliated with a religion and 80% of those unaffiliated
with a religion believe homosexuality and same-sex marriage should be encouraged by society
(see figure 1). The impact of the Darwinian ideology is widespread and has even influenced
those who have traditionally been most opposed to the ideology.
The Newtonian Paradigm and Same-Sex Marriage
Despite popular opinion, the destiny of nations is determined by the unchanging and
universal laws. Same-sex unions are contrary to these laws of nature and the works of Isaac
Newton. We must continue the dialogue on same sex-marriage. We cannot give up in the face of
the Supreme Court’s decision.
After the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, the debate over abortion shamelessly
continued. The people who opposed abortion were not called bigots, but pro-lifers. Although
some people disagreed with pro-lifers, they still respected them and saw that the debate over
abortion had a legitimate but controversial place in society. On the other hand, the debate over
same-sex marriage, following the Obergefell ruling, is moving in a direction similar to the debate
after the lesser known supreme court decision of Loving v. Virginia, that nullified the restrictions
on interracial marriage. Any ongoing arguments that oppose same-sex marriage are viewed as
analogous with opposing interracial marriage. Those who support traditional marriage are not

seen as pro-traditional, but as bigots, just as a person who disagrees with interracial marriage has
been labeled a racist.
The same-sex debate is not over. The same-sex marriage issue and its arguments are
closer to abortion, and should be addressed in a similar manner. We are the first generation in
history to redefine marriage to include something other than the union of a man and a woman.
“[G]reat thinkers throughout human history—and from every political community until about the
year 2000—thought it reasonable and right to view marriage as the union of husband and wife.
Indeed, this view of marriage has been nearly a human universal. It has been shared by the
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions; by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by
the influences of these religions; and by Enlightenment philosophers. It is affirmed by canon law
as well as common and civil law” (Anderson, 2015). Marriage is a widely supported belief
within the prominent religions of the world, but it also holds an important place in the laws of
nations, ancient and modern. Have all these people been misled? Rational thought, historical
precedent, apparent anatomy, and contemporary evidence suggest not.
Chief Justice John Roberts profoundly explains in his dissenting opinion in Obergefell,
“This universal defining of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical
coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease,
war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result
of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a
vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising
them in stable conditions of a lifelong relationship” (Supreme Court of the United States, 2015).
To defy the universal consensus regarding marriage and the natural laws, in order to determine if
a new generation of human beings will perpetuate the human race is daring and relativistic.

It is an absolute fact that if one were to place a gay or lesbian community on an island
and come back in 150 years, one would find it deserted and desolate. “From a public policy
perspective, marriage is about uniting a man and a woman with each other as husband and wife
to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces. Marriage is based on the
anthropological truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that
reproduction depends on a man and woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother
and a father” (Anderson, 2015).
Where is the room for doubt? Why is this an issue? As Darwin established the theory that
dictated that man no longer found his genesis in a Creator, but instead evolved from a lower
intelligence, he laid the foundation for the contempt of moral truth. When a nation disregards
moral and biological truth, and instead recognizes and reveres same-sex marriage, it is grounds
for societal extinction.
The Implications According to Rome
History is a series of cycles. Man simply cannot improve unless he studies the past. Thus
the saying, the farther one looks into the past, the further one can see into the future. Ideas do
have consequences, and society cannot afford to look only at the short term effects. Society
cannot look only at a certain group, but must look at the effects upon society as a whole.
There are so many factors that contribute to a nation's success or destruction, but a
nation's adherence to Natural Law or absolute truth in any facet of existence, whether it be social,
ecclesiastical, political, or economic, has proven time and again to bring prosperity. Alexander
Demandt, a German historian, enumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell, and new
ideas have emerged since. Some general theories include: invasions by Barbarian tribes,

economic troubles, an over-reliance on slave labor, the rise of the Eastern Empire,
overexpansion, military overspending, government corruption, and political instability. As one
examines Rome, an eerie comparison emerges between the rise and fall of Rome and the current
standing of America. It is also interesting to note that certain ideologies and paradigms continue
to resurface, to awaken in the hearts of men, as they continue to influence the rise and fall of
nations. Henry Hazlitt reminds us that “[m]any of the ideas which now pass for brilliant
innovations and advances are in fact mere revivals of ancient errors, and a further proof of the
dictum that those who are ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it” (Hazlitt, 1981). In
addition to these general theories, the following table takes into account a social and moral
aspect, citing the internal corruption and moral degradation of Rome, previously noted by Plato.
Ancient Rome Historical Events & Ideologies United States of
America*
500 BC -Strong family unit
-Father is patriarch
-Monogamy is the ideal
-Adultery and fornication are considered a sin
-Elders are respected/full of wisdom
1720 - 1920
100 BC -Rising to the height of their power
-Economic & military success unseen or recorded in
history before
-The rest of the world struggles with war, economic
troubles
-Communism ideology is taught in other nations
-Low housing & land prices, even giving away land for
free to citizens
-Strong work ethic
-Loyal following of leadership
-Elders start to lose their position
1920 - 1970
100-200AD -Great wealth & prosperity continues, but not as rapid a
pace
1970 - 2000

-Great moral & ethical decline
-Men’s & women’s roles become confused
-More free time & pleasure seeking
-Entitlement begins to build
-Corruption of leaders; infiltration into government
-Individualistic ideology
-Traditional responsibilities ignored
300-400AD -Decline of Empire is more evident
-Empire loses ground & hold with other nations
-Respect & position as a Super Power declines
-Population growth in major decline
-Vice & corruption are on the rise
-Economic and political instability abound
-Assassinations of leaders & poor choices in elections
are common
-Partisanship at a fevered pitch
-Foreigners migrate across borders in lg. numbers; feel
hopeless to stop them
-Non-traditional Religions threaten established way of
life
-Family unit is weaker than ever
-Gluttony, sin, immorality, & addictions are widespread
-War & disruptions to peace are common
-Leadership is seen as corrupt
-Elderly not respected
2000 - 2010
500 AD -President / Emperor no longer in power; puppet ruled
by elite & powerful
-Massive debt & financial corruption
-Military power greatly weakened
-Traditional national demographic no longer fill key
positions or military core
-Mercenaries play leadership roles
-Empire / Nation loses power, land, corporations, &
economic holds (sold or taken over, war, debt)
-Widespread immorality
2010 – Current
*America’s progression through the stages is much faster than Rome’s due to the blessing or
curse of high tech mass communication. (Chateau Heartiste, 2010)

In essence, “The fall of Rome, is a complicated matter. It was not caused by a single
event, or only one moral issue. But it is widely accepted that Rome fell because of immorality
and decay, the people turning to hedonism, parties and outright sexual orgies. Not so different
from the post-Christian western civilization today” (Fjeld, 2013). The parallels are striking
between ancient Rome and modern day America. What then must we do to not fall as Rome?
Conclusion
Look to the law and live. Seek the truth, and once found, steadfastly stand for it. The laws
of nature and nature’s God are unchanging and everlasting. Society may say they are better than
those who have come before, but that is only true if society submits to the saving guidance of
Natural Law. This arrives at the origin of the morality and the inherent necessity of man to have
a standard come from a source higher than himself, such as God.
How, then, shall we discover the realities of the distant past, the infinite future, the
remoteness of space, or the inner reaches of the soul? How shall we know who to love,
who to hate, what to live for, what to die for? Why should a man be true to his wife or do
the honest thing rather than the convenient thing? Why are some things worth dying for
and others of little or no value? Yes, where do values come from, and how do they apply
to life? Science is unable to provide an answer to these and other important questions of
life. As far as science is concerned, a hatchet is a hatchet, whether it is used to carve a
statute or to kill a friend.
But, alas, we learn from departments other than science that a hatchet is not just a
hatchet. It is an instrument capable of being used for moral or immoral purposes. We
instantly see, therefore (if we are not blinded), that important things are not atoms,

molecules, hatchets, or rockets. No, indeed, important things are moral values. Life and
existence in this world cannot be explained or appreciated apart from them.
Where do moral values come from? They come from the eternal and everlasting
God who made the universe. This is the God whose existence some scientists deny—not
because they are scientists but because they lack humility, never having taken the time to
properly consider the limitations of science. How supremely ridiculous it is for a person
to hold a bubbling test tube up against the sun and say, “There is no God!” Yes, the
scientist may have “made” the test tube (he didn’t really), but who made the sun? The
beginning of wisdom is recognizing that there is a God who stands behind it all. This God
created the universe; it is “the work of His hands. (Breese, 1990)
Will our world return to the wisdom found in the recognition of God and His enduring
commandments? If one is to return, one must become aware of what paradigms affect societies
and the standards by which societies live. Societies cannot stand in ignorance.
Never has a nation been able prevent its own demise. Nations have always been too
proud, too trusting in science and other fraudulent alternatives to truth. They have not exercised
their will, their ability to save themselves. Instead they became so ignorant and indolent as to
assure their own enslavement or destruction. “As we have seen, science cannot explain the moral
nature of man, and therefore refuses to recognize the depths of sin into which man has fallen. It
sees no need for redemption but only calls for education. Being so disposed, it cannot offer true
hope to a lost humanity. It has been very good, however, at producing the instruments by which a
lost humanity progressively attempts to destroy itself” (Breese, 1990). What must society do to
avoid a self-imposed annihilation?

Civilization must return to the asylum of the stars, to the household of the heavens, to the
regulation of the constellations. Society must yield to the appeals of absolute truth and the
petitions of Natural Law. Society must look to the Greeks, the Romans, the enlightenment
thinkers, to Newton, to the Founders, and courageously stand for the laws of nature and nature’s
God, as those who have gone before have stood. Mankind cannot define what is right and wrong
and endure. Mankind must have a standard determined not by the mind of man, but by the
empowering providential hand of God.

References
Abortion ProCon. (2011, September). Pro & Con Arguments: "Should Abortion Be Legal?".
Retrieved from Abortion ProCon: http://abortion.procon.org/
Adams, J. (n.d.). John Adams Quotes. Retrieved from The Federalist Papers Project:
https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/john-adams
Anderson, R. T. (2015). Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom.
Washington DC: Regnery Publishing.
Barker, E. (2012, June 1). How marriage has changed over centuries. Retrieved from The Week:
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
BBC. (n.d.). Isaac Newton: The man who discovered gravity. Retrieved from British
Broadcasting Channel: http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zwwgcdm
Beeke, D. J. (n.d.). Is Abortion Really So Bad? Retrieved from The Mountain Retreat:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/abort.html
Breese, D. (1990). 7 Men Who Rule the World from the Grave. David W. Breese.
Brock, R. M. (2012, May 21). Remarks from NAACP press conference on marriage equality.
Retrieved from National Association for the Advancement of Colored People:
http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/remarks-from-naacp-press-conference-on-resolution-
supporting-marriage-equal
Chateau Heartiste. (2010, December 27). Feminism Responsible For The Fall Of Rome.
Retrieved from Chateau Heartiste: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/feminism-
responsible-for-the-fall-of-rome/
Cline, K. (2011, May 4). How Isaac Newton’s science inspired the American Revolution.
Retrieved from Independent Record: http://helenair.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/how-

isaac-newton-s-science-inspired-the-american-revolution/article_ea6a77b0-760c-11e0-
bfc4-001cc4c002e0.html
Cohen, I. B. (1969). Philosophy, Science, and Method: Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel, ed.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Cunningham, P. (2015, November 11). Choice and Consequences. Retrieved from YouTube:
World Congress of Families IX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAC-_F8xtn0
Darwin, C. (1950). Charles Darwin's Autobiography. New York: Henry Schuman.
Desmond, A. J. (2015, January 1). Charles Darwin | British naturalist. Retrieved from
Encyclopædia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Darwin
Ebenstein, W., & Ebenstein, A. (1991). Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present (6th ed.).
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
Fjeld, I. (2013, July 31). Fall of the Roman Empire caused by widespread homosexuality.
Retrieved from ivarfjeld.com: http://ivarfjeld.com/2013/07/31/fall-of-roman-empire-
caused-by-widespread-homosexuality/
Francis, J. M. (2006). Adults as Children: Images of Childhood in the Ancient World and the
New Testament. New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.
Gay Marriage ProCon. (2016, Febuary 16). Pro & Con Arguments: Should Gay Marriage Be
Legal? Retrieved from Gay Marriage ProCon: http://gaymarriage.procon.org/
Hatch, R. A. (n.d.). Sir Isaac Newton. Retrieved from Isaac Newton biography - Newton's life,
career, work - Dr Robert A. Hatch: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/ufhatch/pages/01-
Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm
Hazlitt, H. (1981). Economics in One lesson: The shortest and surest way to understand basic
economics. New York: Arlington House Publishers.

International Astronomical Union. (n.d.). The Constellations. Retrieved from International
Astronomical Union: http://www.iau.org/public/themes/constellations/
Jefferson, T. (1776, July 4). Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. Retrieved from The
Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp
Johnson, P. (1983). Modern Times. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Lincoln, A. (2001). Abraham Lincoln quotes at BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved from
BrainyQuote.com: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin133687.html
McCann, K. (2013, October 24). The Miracle of Human Development: Life Begins Long Before
She’s Born. Retrieved from Life News: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/24/the-
miracle-of-human-development-life-begins-long-before-shes-born/
NCSL. (2015). Fetal Homicide Laws. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures.
Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
New, M. J. (2011, September 6). Abortion and the 14th Amendment. Retrieved from National
Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/276303/abortion-and-14th-amendment-
michael-j-new
Pace, E. (1994, April 12). Dr. Jerome Lejeune Dies at 67; Found Cause of Down Syndrome.
Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/12/obituaries/dr-
jerome-lejeune-dies-at-67-found-cause-of-down-syndrome.html
Parenthood, P. (n.d.). Abortion. Retrieved from Planned Parenthood:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2008). US Religious Landscape Survey: Religious
Beliefs and Practices: Diverse and Politically Relevant. Washington D.C.: Pew Research

Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2008/06/01/u-s-religious-landscape-
survey-religious-beliefs-and-practices/
Plato. (1992). The Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
Skousen, C. W. (2006). The 5000 year leap: The 28 great ideas that changed the world.
Washington D.C.: National Center for Constitutional Studies.
Snobelen, S. D. (2010). The theology of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica: A preliminary
survey. Retrieved from Isaac Newton: Theology, Prophecy, Science, and Religion:
https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/theology-of-the-principia.pdf
Subramuniyaswami, S. (1993, January). Let's Talk About Abortion. Retrieved from Hinduism
Today: Let's Talk About Abortion
Supreme Court of the United States. (1967, June 12). Loving v. Virginia. Retrieved from Cornell
University Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1
Supreme Court of the United States. (2015, June 26). OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES.
Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Toobin, J. (2013, January 28). The People’s Choice. Retrieved from The New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/01/28/the-peoples-choice-2
United States Congress. (1866, June 13). Constitution of the United States: Amendment XIV.
Retrieved from The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#14
United States Congress. (2004, April 1). Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Retrieved from
Congress: https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf
United States Supreme Court. (1973, January 22). Roe v. Wade. Retrieved from Find Law:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

United States Supreme Court. (2007, April 18). Gonzales, Attorney General v. Carhart et al.
Retrieved from Find Law: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/550/124.html
Untited States Supreme Court. (1992, June 29). Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey. Retrieved from Cornell University Law School:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/833
Wilson, W. (1913). The New Freedom. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company.

Figures
Figure 1. (Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008)

Our Fading Constellation: How Ideas Influence Society

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Our Fading Constellation: How Ideas Influence Society

Similaire à Our Fading Constellation: How Ideas Influence Society (17)

Our Fading Constellation: How Ideas Influence Society