Our Supreme Court, Who Art in Washington.

Photo courtesy of davidlat

It is a very dangerous doctrine indeed to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, and one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. -Thomas Jefferson, 1820 

If you have read any of my other posts you know that there are many things that I find disturbing in our society. Hopefully some of the same things disturb you as well. However, one of the most frightening developments of late is the elevation of the Supreme Court over and above God. What I mean is that if the Supreme Court says something is okay, then it is okay. This is actually a sign of a deeper and more widespread problem, the idea that legality equates with morality. That is, if something is legal then it must be morally acceptable. The problems with this idea are many and varied, suffice it to say that if morality is defined by what is legal then there is no solid foundation for morality. This, of course, would fall right in line with current postmodern, relativistic philosophy. The problem arises from the fact that if this is the case then nine human beings, who are no better than you and I, get to define morality for the rest of us. I don't know about you but to me that is a little unsettling.

You have to admit that there is a certain amount of arrogance associated with sitting behind a bench and basically telling people "We don't care what God or anyone else says, we're the law in this land. What we say goes." Let us not forget that the Supreme Court's duty is not the "legislate from the bench" but to uphold the Constitution just as all other elected and appointed officials. Now, instead of coming to a conclusion about what the law says, as written, the justices seem to believe that their job is to decide what is and isn't legal. There is an important distinction here and it is as clear as the branches of government. It is the job of the legislature to make laws defining what is legal or illegal. It is the job of the court to determine when someone has transgressed the law of the legislature. This is the case with what the Constitution calls "lesser courts" or "inferior court" so why is it different for the highest court in the land.

I agree that it is within the powers of the Supreme Court to try cases regarding the Constitutionality of a particular law. However, with the not-so-new phenomenon called "Constitutional Review" it is less about what the actual intent of the Constitution is and more about what the judges like or dislike. The major failure in worldview is that rather than understanding that the Constitution was put in place to limit government, the Supreme Court now seems to see it's role as seeing how far the government can reach into the lives of the citizens. A perfect example of this is the recent catastrophe that has come to be called "Obamacare." Once the case was brought before the Court they should have looked at it and said, "Are you crazy? This is ridiculous and not at all in line with the ideals that our nation was founded upon. Case closed."

Another more recent example would be the case for homosexual marriages. The fact is, this is not a Constitutional issue or even a legal issue. It is a religious issue, something the Supreme Court should never be in the business of deciding. They are so bent on removing all signs of religion from the public sphere but are more than willing to take the public arena into Church. This is philosophical treason of the highest order. Again their response should have been, "Are you kidding me? This is a religious issue and we're not a theological tribunal. Take this to the Vatican or somewhere else."

This may take some time but I think it will be worth it. Marriage is not the same as a civil union or a legal contract. In our society there is some correlation between the two but they are distinct entities. Marriage is a vow...a covenant that a man and a woman make between themselves and God. Our legal system has given that covenant some weight and that is as it should be. Logically, if someone were willing to make a vow with God it would make sense that it would carry even more power within the lesser realm of earthly law. If two homosexuals want to enter into a contract or union on this earth that gives them certain legal privileges then I have no problem with that whatsoever, especially under the Constitution. The fact is, the privileges of marriage are granted automatically because of the nature of the vow and who it was made with. I would wager that most of the same privileges are attainable through the legal system, it just requires more effort. However, demanding that it be given the title of "marriage" is stepping outside the legal realm into the religious realm. In effect what the pro-homosexual marriage lobby is doing is saying, "We want the Supreme Court to tell the Church what it can and cannot believe." At this point it would be appropriate to proclaim that which the anti-religious people say so often..."Separation of Church and State!"

The real problem here though is not with the squeaky wheel but the mechanic that puts oil on it. If the Supreme Court would start taking their job seriously and do what they are Constitutionally allowed to do, and nothing more, these issues would not exist. The Throne of Grace has been replaced by the Bench of Power and it seems to me the justices are more than willing to usurp what is God's alone. If we, as a society, began to realize that our rights are not granted by nine humans sitting in Washington DC but by a great and mighty God I think we would really begin to live in the freedom that we have a natural right to. Our Founding Fathers had it right when they said that every person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That pretty much sums it up. We don't have the right to other people's money, free health care, or to do whatever we dang well please no matter who it hurts or what divine laws it transgresses.

So what are we to do with ourselves since we will in a country that is increasingly run by an oligarchy? First of all, we have to realize for ourselves that the Supreme Court isn't the highest court around, God is. Secondly, we have to demand that the justices, present and future, begin to judge according to the law of God and the law of the the land (the Constitution). If public opinion began to move back to freedom and liberty, as our nation was founded, then the Court would be moved. Obviously, they are as human as anyone and clearly they are swayed by public outcry. So let's cry out. Furthermore, if we were to elect freedom loving patriots to the legislature then they would have the power to reject candidates for justice that want to use the Constitution as toilet paper.

In the end I am far more concerned about what God has to say on issues than what nine politicians have to say. Man saying something is okay only makes it okay when God agrees. Period, end of story.

Semper Libertas,
RV

Florida Atlantic, Only One Example of Academia Going Down the Toilet.

It is becoming more evident by the second that we have come completely detached from our moral moorings in this nation. Recently, as many of you may have heard, a class at Florida Atlantic University was told to write the name "Jesus" in large letters on a piece of paper. Once that difficult assignment was completed they were to place the paper on the floor and stomp on it. For a moment lets imagine that the same assignment was given, only the name of Jesus was replaced with Muhammad or Allah. I dare say there would be terrorists on the way to blow something up right about now. This story does end on a positive note because one student, Ryan Rotela, was courageous enough to stand up to the professor and their ludicrous request. The trouble was, Rotela was the one who almost got expelled! Initially, the university was going to bring him up on charges of violating the student code of conduct because he reported the professor.

In the interest of doing at least some research on the matter I consulted the FAU Student Conduct manual to see for myself what the charges may have been. I admit that I only briefly skimmed the manual because it is lengthy. However, I did find this in the opening material.

(2) Principles
     (b). Respect for Self and Others: Students are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which exemplifies respect for people of all races, religions, and ethnic groups, and to adhere to one's personal values without unduly imposing them on others. Respect for one's own mind and body, is essential. In interpersonal relationships, students are expected to respect the rights of others, particularly their right to refuse to participate in any activity. Students should take responsibility to serve as leaders in promoting compassion for others and challenging prejudice.


Now, I may be misreading this but is sounds to me like Rotela was upholding the highest standards of this code of conduct. He is a committed Mormon so he was adhering to his own personal values and it appears that he was not telling anyone else not to stomp on the paper. Furthermore, the students are expected to respect everyone's right to refuse to participate in any activity but it seems this does not apply to the faculty. Finally, Rotela was following through with the final statement and challenging prejudice against Christians.

I am glad to report that Rotela will not be facing any charges from the university and it sounds like they have been more than apologetic. The question that will probably remain unanswered is whether or not the university is truly sorry that this happened or sorry that they got caught and felt the weight of public outcry.

Let me move on to another troublesome subject. It seems that over the past few months events called "Sex Week" have become popular on college campuses around the nation. Of course, at some institutions every week is a sex week but now they have morphed into college sponsored events. TIME Magazine's NewsFeed has posted an interesting piece on the University of Tennessee's refusal to allow state dollars to fund this event. In this article it lists some of the activities and forums planned for the week:

- "How many licks does it take?"
- Golden condom scavenger hunt
- A lesbian bondage expert

I want to believe this is some kind of joke, but is isn't. Even some of the most hallowed academic institutions in our country are participating, including Yale and Harvard. The only thought running through my mind is, "What is the world coming to?" Let us not forget that Harvard was founded as a seminary for the training of ministers and missionaries. These places do resemble something from the Bible...Sodom and Gomorrah. This is not only an example of the moral degeneration of our society but it is also propelling us down the road of depravity. We are now teaching the next generation that it is, indeed, all about their own personal pleasure.

Both of these example, Florida Atlantic and Sex Weeks, fly in the face of Christian values and the moral framework upon which our nation was founded. Religious freedom is being eroded right along with moral purity. How can we possibly expect to maintain a position of greatness in the world when we are rotting away from the inside. If we expect people to be tolerant of other religions why are we teaching them to stomp on the name of Jesus? If we want people to respect the act of sexual intimacy and the bodies of others why are we teaching them how to pervert it? This kind of philosophical treason and moral rot should be an outrage to us all. This, I dare say, is not what higher education is supposed to be. God save us.

Semper Libertas,

RV

Dangerous Thoughts on a Hot Topic

An interesting, but not shocking, article appeared on my Facebook news feed this afternoon.

NC Church vows to stop weddings until same-sex marriages are allowed.

Through this article I discovered that Green Street United Methodist Church in Winston-Salem, NC (my beloved birthplace) has decided that it will no longer marry anyone until the United Methodist Church and the state of North Carolina legalize same-sex marriages. While I applaud their courage in taking a stand for what they believe in I cannot condone the issue for which they are standing. Now, before I go any further let me get some preliminary statements out of the way. Number one, while I disagree that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle in God's eyes I do not, in any way, condone hatred towards those who choose to live this way. I believe that they are due the same love and respect that any other human being is. Christ has commanded us to love our neighbor, and homosexuals are our neighbors...period...end of story. However, in loving them as we would any other person we are not required, by the Bible or common sense, to legitimize their lifestyle. In fact, I would argue that not telling them the truth about what God has to say on homosexuality would be the very opposite of love. The problem is, as Christians, we have done a great disservice to Christ and the Gospel in the way we have, heretofore, handled this issue. That, I am afraid, is another topic for another day.

Now on to the topic at hand. The issue of homosexual marriage is multifaceted to say the least. For now, I would like to address two of those facets; is it acceptable according to God, and should it be a legal matter?

1. As for the first question, it is abundantly clear that the Bible is not silent on the issue of homosexuality. Romans 1:24-26 states the following;

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

It would take some pretty fancy hermeneutical acrobatics to read that passage in way that shined a favorable light on same-sex relations. "Degrading passions" and "indecent acts" are not typically the phrases one would use for simply an "alternative lifestyle." Paul is no less clear when he writes to Timothy and categorizes homosexuality right along-side "the unholy and profane," "murderers," "immoral men," "liars" and "kidnappers (I Timothy 1:8-11)." Please understand, my point here is not to elevate homosexuality to a higher level of sin that is somehow more abominable to God than the others. In fact, I think Paul does a marvelous job of letting us know that it falls in with all the others. What we must avoid, however, is the idea that it is not a sin. Then we can begin to address it in an appropriate manner. We don't just write off liars and drunkards. We try to lovingly bring them to a point of conviction over their sin so that Christ can save them from it, just as He has done for we who are believers.

The thing that is ravaging many mainstream denominations in our culture is that they want to explain away the sin known as homosexuality and, for the life of me, I can't figure out why. Green Street UMC has decided to stake their claim on real estate that is decidedly contrary to God's Word. The Gospel of Christ is not that there is no sin to be forgiven of, it is that we all have sin to be forgiven of and Christ paid the price to make that possible. Liberal churches and denominations have stripped the Gospel, and God's Word, of all of its power and most beautiful message. Biblical interpretation is such a lovely tool but it is oh so dangerous when we begin to bypass the truth in an effort to quench our own desires.

2. Let me turn my attention to the second aspect of this issue, should same-sex marriage be a legal issue? The short answer is "yes," and I can already hear the outcry, "Keep your laws out of my panties!" and "You can't legislate morality!" To the first I will simply respond, I'll keep legislation out of your panties when you keep it out of my wallet. Finis.

The really philosophical sounding one is the second, "You can't legislate morality." Au contraire mon ami, I believe you are wrong on that note. If one really looks deeply at all legislation you will find that it is moral in nature. Even economic legislation is based on a moral presupposition. For instance, the new health care act that has come to be called "Obamacare" is rooted in the ideal that it is morally wrong for a country such as ours not to provide health care for its citizens. Our entire Constitution is a commentary on what the Founding Fathers saw as the moral duties and limits of government. Nearly every law on the books has some moral component to it. The real statement that the same-sex marriage proponents should be decrying is, "You can't legislate your morality on me." At least that would be philosophically consistent.

In conclusion I will say this. As Americans we often ask that God bless our nation and this is as it should be. The really terrible thing is that we ask Him to bless it one moment and then in the next, we explain to Him that refuse to abide by any of His commandments. This, my friends, is the utmost foolishness. It is no different than asking our parents to buy us a Ferrari so that we can drive it off of a cliff because that seems like something fun to do.Thankfully God can see through our thin facade and the truth is, as long as we continue down the road we are on, God will not bless America.