Moral Polytheism
By Gary DeMar
A number of articles have been published about the demise of the church in America. Newsweek, copying the cover design of the April 12, 1966 of Time magazine’s “Is God Dead?” cover, carried an article on The Decline and Fall of Christian America in its April 13, 2009 issue. Then there were the statements by President Obama that America is no longer a Christian nation. Former president Clinton has added to the argument with the claim that the United States is no longer “dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority” since there is now a “growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here.”[1] People like Obama and Clinton think this is a good thing. I disagree.
Multiculturalism is a type of ethical polytheism: many moral law-orders based on many gods.
Polytheism (all gods are equal) leads to relativism (all moral codes are equal); relativism leads to humanism (man makes his own laws); and humanism leads to statism (the State best represents mankind as the pinnacle of power). As Rushdoony remarks, [2] “because an absolute law is denied, it means that the only universal law possible is an imperialistic law, a law imposed by force and having no validity other than the coercive imposition.”[3]
We are being driven back to the Tower of Babel on the theological bus of multi-religionism in the name of multiculturalism. The multiculturalists are forcing the position, and the word is forcing, that all cultures are inherently equal, except, of course, Western culture which does not accept the view that all cultures are ethically equal. Biblical Christianity is their ultimate target.
The menace of multiculturalism is not new. God warned the Israelites from mixing with the surrounding nations because of the potential for ethical, not ethnic, pollution. Their separation from the nations was not, as Hal Lindsey suggests, based on racial patterns. “If the Law of Moses were still in force today, ” Lindsey writes, “there would be no Church, since racial segregation of Israelites from the Gentiles was an essential part of the covenant.”[4] There were no racial barriers in Israel. The Edomites, for example, had the same ancestry as Israel. Jacob and Esau (Edom) were brothers. They were of the same “race.” The Bible tells us that God “made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26; cf. Gen. 3:20). There can be no racial superiority if one truly believes the Bible.
The separateness in Israel was over religious and ethical differences. Israelites were to steer clear of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Edomites, and Jebusites because of their religious and ethical practices, not because they were different ethnically or racially. A non-Israelite could become a part of the covenant community through circumcision and adherence to the covenant requirements. This would mean denouncing the worldview of paganism. A family could be incorporated into Israel by faith, as was Rahab’s family (Joshua 2:8-14).
Rahab was, from the viewpoint of the Israelites, a foreigner. She did not belong to the chosen people; but through faith she was accepted into their company and enjoyed the privileges and blessings from which formerly she had been excluded. In this she was an exemplification of the truth of the covenant promise that in the seed of Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 22:18; Gal 3:8f.). Especially interesting is the fact that, once incorporated into the people of God, she even won an honored place in the line that led to the fulfillment of the divine promises in the birth of Christ. Thus, according to the genealogy at the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel, Rahab married Salmon and became the mother of Boaz, who in turn also married an alien woman, Ruth the Moabitess, who became the mother of Obed, David’s grandfather (Mt. 1:5f.).[5]
Rahab, a foreigner (Heb. 11:31; James 2:25), and Abraham, an Israelite (Rom. 4:9; James 2:23), are used as examples of Old Testament faith. Rahab abandoned her pagan religion and the ethical system that was inextricably tied to it. Israel was warned “not to follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, ” God told them, “for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them” (Leviticus 20:23). They were “abhorred” because of their deeds, not because they were of a certain race or nationality.
The New Testament sets up similar religious/ethical barriers. God is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles (Rom. 3:29; Rev. 15:3). But the Gentiles did not know God (1 Thess. 4:5). They were led astray to idols (1 Cor. 12:2). This resulted in them not knowing or keeping the law of God (Gal. 2:15). As a consequence, they lived in the futility of their minds (Acts 14:16; Eph. 4:17). These results are still in effect for those who reject the renewing gospel of Jesus and the ethical requirements of His commandments. Religion has consequences.
As Christians, we are not to be “bound together with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14). Why? “For what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (vv. 14b–16). There is a correlation between worship (Christ vs. Belial) and ethics (righteousness vs. lawlessness). The multiculturalists insist that Belial is as good as Christ, therefore, righteousness and lawlessness are subjective categories that only have validity within the context of one’s accepted belief system. Since we live in what is now a pluralistic society (another name for multiculturalism), claims of right and wrong are only legitimate within the limited parameters of one’s worldview. These narrow values have no place in the melting pot of multiculturalism since they would assert that other systems of morality are inherently wrong.
Endnotes[1] Christine Simmons, “Bill Clinton: United States growing more diverse” (June 14, 2009)�
[2]�Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Craig Press, 1973), 17.
[3]�Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 158.
[4]�Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam Books, 1989), 265.
[5]�Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 504
Source: www.feedcat.net
Dental Hungary, dentist Budapest dentistshungary.net
Read our collection of Dental Hungary, dentist Budapest dentistshungary.net news, articles, blogs, and more
Source: www.feedage.com
Squidoo: dentist hungary
I'm the head of the Biodental Budapest dental clinic. We offer affordable treatments and the services are very good. I woulf like to everybody know about hungarian dental solutions, it may help if you are in trouble in your insurance.
Source: www.feedage.com
Why Common Sense Died
By Dr. Archie P. Jones
Recently Glenn Beck has rightly been lamenting the death of “common sense” in American government and law—a phenomenon which must be evident to many Americans over forty and manifest to every Bible-believing Christian. Philip K. Howard had complained against massive, hyper-detailed laws generated by regulatory bureaucracies to tell us what we must do in every situation—and leaving nothing to the common sense of the individual—in The Death of Common Sense; How Law Is Suffocating America (1995). Glenn’s guest Lori Borgman lamented the death of “Common Sense” in a great, now much-circulated satirical obituary in the March 15, 1998 Indianapolis Star.
Bureaucratic law, Howard noted, replaced humanity in the replacement of the system of common law which we inherited from England. Bureaucratic rules and regulations seek to predetermine results based on rationalistically conceived principles; the common law applies the law on the basis of the circumstances as evaluated by the common sense of the individual person. The “Progressive Era” at the beginning of the twentieth century saw statutory law begin to replace the common law for purposes of economic regulation; this increased with the economic regulations of the “New Deal” and continued with the increase of federal government bureaucracies added under subsequent administrations. The idea that every situation must be covered by the law has produced an explosion of the size and detail of laws—including those which Congress votes on but never reads, those which our bureaucrats produce but cannot explain, and those which cannot be known because the regulations are too massive and numerous. The fact that no matter how learned, intelligent, and numerous are the bureaucrats who grind out these legal monstrosities they cannot know or anticipate every situation produces not only oppressive regulations but also the frequently asinine details of many regulations. Centrally-dictated, self-exercising rules, Howard notes, admit “no judgment or discretion, ” allow for no adjustment to the virtually infinite “range of future circumstances, ” and give us the opposite of what our “founding fathers” wanted: coercive government, “a government of laws against men.” Such a legal system stifles individual initiative, produces time-consuming wrangles over bureaucratic processes, involved lawyers in virtually every human interaction, makes us a society of legal enemies, and reduces our freedom.
Borgman traces the death of “Common Sense” to the prior deaths of his family members, Discretion, Responsibility, and Reason. And to his declining health, caused by the notion that a law should be passed or a regulation mandated even if it only helps one person, well-intentioned but overbearing regulations, self-seeking lawyers, and schools’ zero-tolerance policies. And to his loss of the will to live—caused by the proscription of the Ten Commandments, churches becoming businesses, criminals getting better treatment than their victims, judges interfering in everything, idiotic decisions by juries, and nonsensical OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Administration)-type regulations. Howard traces it to 17th and 18th century “Enlightenment” rationalism’s notion that man’s unaided reason can predetermine, and create laws governing, all relations between citizens.
The death of “Common Sense” was and is caused by modern men’s rejection of God, the Bible, and a Christian view of the world and of life. “Enlightenment” rationalism sought to effectively exclude God from His universe and world (rationalistic Deism which denied God’s divine providence) was but one way of doing this), to replace God’s word with man’s unaided reason, to replace God’s divine providence with man’s control of all things through the all-powerful state, and God’s law with man’s laws. “Common Sense” is not a universal thing. As R. J. Rushdoony pointed out, different religious-philosophies teach diverse views of the world and of life, and what is considered commonsensical in one society is not considered to be so in another. What we in Western Civilization considered to be common sense was a product of the prior influence of Christianity on the peoples of Western Civilization.
When Western and American law were based mainly on biblical teachings men could know what the law required—and figure out what the law required in a given new situation—because God’s law is not a monstrous, complex, self-contradictory conglomeration of regulations. The common law is a great mass of judicial decisions, but the ethics on which those decisions were based, the ethics which allowed for individual initiative and judgment in novel situations, is derived from biblical law and Christian theories of “natural law.” God’s law revealed in the Bible contains few laws which men, using their God-given reason as He intended us to use it, can discern. Christ’s yoke is easy and His burden is light. Faith in Him and obedience to His law is the way of national prosperity and freedom (as Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26 and many other Bible passages make clear).
Though modern man-centered thought, because of its inherent problems, has gone from rationalism to irrationality, the irrationalists who currently dominate our culture and civil governments are just as opposed to common sense and freedom as were their rationalistic parents. Their continued rule will make sure that “Common Sense” stays dead. And it will certainly kill Freedom.
Americans used to have the freedom to use common sense because the church—following the Great Commission—had sought to influence, and did decisively influence the peoples of Western Civilization including these United States of America: their ethical, social, legal, and political thought, institutions, and culture. Americans no longer have that freedom to use common sense because the church has long abandoned the wholeness of the Great Commission. The church in this country as well as throughout Western Civilization still has virtually abandoned preaching and teaching the whole counsel of God; education; ethical, social, legal, and political thought; and the influencing legal and political institutions. As a result “Common Sense” is dead and Freedom is nearly so.
Americans used to be free to exercise “Common Sense”—and to have the Freedom to do so—because the church had (albeit imperfectly!) obeyed the Great Commission. “Common Sense” will not be resurrected, and Freedom will soon die—or be strangled—if the church does not return to the whole counsel of God and obedience to His Great Commission.
Source: www.feedcat.net
The Importance of Psalm 110
By Joel McDurmon
The New Testament quotes from Psalm 110 more than from any other Old Testament passage. This apostolic emphasis deserves more attention than it has so far received. In the New Testament references to this passage we find the determinant keys to Eschatology, or the doctrine of the future. The resulting ideas we glean from how Peter, Paul, and others apply Psalm 110 overturn much of the popular understanding of prophecy and “end times” teaching. A more consistent understanding will help modern Christians see through popular doom and gloom, through maniacal apocalyptic hysteria, and instead apprehend an optimism and goal-oriented Christian life many have not even yet considered.
Psalm 110, simply, teaches that the Lord (Adonai) shall sit at the right hand of the Almighty (Yaweh), and while the Lord holds that enthroned position, the Almighty shall vanquish all His enemies (v. 1). This vanquishing occurs through the power of the Lord’s strength applied in the midst his enemies (in other words, the enthronement of the Lord does not mean that He sits aloft and disconnected from worldly affairs, but just the opposite) (v.2) This point receives clarification and re-emphasis in v. 5. During the time of this enthroned rule, God’s people shall willingly rally to join and serve him (v. 3). The Lord does not rule as any ordinary ruler, but as an eternal priest-King like Melchizedek (Melchi-Zedek is Hebrew for “My King is Righteous”)—a point strongly emphasized of Christ in the book of Hebrews (v. 4). The Lord-Priest-King engages in the subduing of his enemies from his enthroned seat, and thus jointly with the Almighty (v. 5). His rule extends over unbelieving nations and over the heads of nations; He is truly a King of kings (v. 6). He shall not stop to rest or turn aside from the way of battle, signifying his dedication to constancy of his mission until the completion and of the task (v. 7). This is the simple reading of the text.
The New Testament writers picked up and applied this simple message as Christ Jesus fulfilled it. Peter announces that this mission—this enthronement—began when Christ ascended to the father (Acts. 2:31–36). Thus, Christ sits on that throne now; the kingdom of God awaits no future “coming” or “appearance” in order to inaugurate its leader: He has taken his throne once and for all. Christ clearly had this passage in mind for Himself: He referred to its divine nature in order to confute the Pharisees (Mt. 22:41–45), and to His immediate session at God’s right hand in order to announce the coming judgment on the Jerusalem leaders (Mt. 26:64). These two passages (among many) suffice to show how Christ fulfilled the enthronement prophecy at His ascension and session. (The writer of Hebrews makes this clear also—Heb. 1:1–3, 13).
We must, then, expect the rest of the prophecy to flow out from Christ’s very present rule as logically and consistently as the Almighty says in the Psalm. We in fact do find this as taught by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. In discussing the reality and implication of Christ’s victorious resurrection, Paul says the following:
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death (1 Cor. 15:22–25).
From this we learn that Christ, in His present reign, will continue His conquest until He completely abolishes all opposition to His rule. At this point—after He has abolished all rule and all authority, and not one moment before—He will come and resurrect His people from the last enemy, death. The writer of Hebrews seconds this idea that Christ currently reigns, expecting his enemies to be made his footstool (Heb. 10:12–13).
I find this series of Old Testament prophecy as interpreted and applied by the New Testament authors to present a simple and yet challenging view of eschatology. It is simple in how clearly the apostles lay it out: Christ fulfilled Ps. 110:1, and we currently live in the time of the historical outworking of the waging of war (Ps. 110:2–7). We should expect—as Christ currently is expecting (Heb. 10:13)—to experience a gradual and progressive subduing of His enemies in history. This process shall continue until He has utterly abolished all opposition. Then, and only then, shall He come again to resurrect those saints who have died in the interim.
Compare this very simple, obvious, and consistent understanding with the “dispensational” and “premillennial” views popularized by C. I. Scofield in The Scofield Reference Bible. In his notes on Psalm 110, “Dr.” Scofield makes a few fundamental errors, and also skips over the most important aspects. I will quote his relevant exegetical notes together first, and then deal with his comments individually. He writes,
The importance of Psalm 110 is attested by the remarkable prominence given to it in the New Testament. (1) It affirms the deity of Jesus, thus answering those who deny the full divine meaning of his N.T. title “Lord” (v. 1; Matt. 22. 41–45; Mk. 12. 35–37; Lk. 20. 41–44; Acts 2. 34, 35; Heb. 1. 13; 10. 12, 13). (2) This Psalm announces the eternal priesthood of the Messiah—one of the most important statements of Scripture (v. 4; Gen 14. 18, note; 7. 1–28; 1 Tim. 2. 5, 6; John 14. 6). (3) Historically, the Psalm begins with the ascension of Christ (v. 1; John 20. 17; Acts 7. 56; Rev. 3. 21). (4) Prophetically, the Psalm looks on (a) to the time when Christ will appear as the Rod of Jehovah’s strength, the Deliverer out of Zion (Rom. 11. 25–27), and the conversion of Israel (v. 3; Joel 2. 27; Zech 13. 9; See Deut. 30. 1–9, note); and (b) to the judgment upon the Gentile powers which precedes the setting up of the kingdom (vs. 5, 6; Joel 3. 9–17; Zech. 14. 1–4; Rev. 19. 11–21).[1]
On points (1) and (2) I substantially agree. I, in fact, agree with point (3) as well—that this Scripture began to find fulfillment historically with the ascension of Christ—which makes for an interesting acknowledgement on Scofield’s part. He should, however, have included Acts 2:34–35 as a proof text here instead of under his point (2) only. In Acts 2:32–36, Peter definitively teaches that Psalm 110:1 found its fulfillment in the ascension and session of Jesus Christ.
Most problematically under points (3) and (4), his arbitrary and artificial distinction between “historically” and “prophetically” begs the question of interpretation. From the Psalmist’s perspective (from which Scofield should have been commenting at this point), the whole Psalm remained “prophetical, ” if we take this term in the sense of “future.” Even the session of Christ at the Father’s right hand remained far distant future for him. The arbitrariness appears in where Scofield determines to draw the line. He accepts Christ’s ascension as fulfilling only verse 1 of the Psalm, and then leaves the rest of the subduing of the kingdoms as an ethnic-Israel-centered “prophecy” pertaining only to the distant future. This, of course, typifies the traditional dispensational system in general. But it hardly does justice to the Psalm itself, let alone the apostolic writers’ interpretation of it. The more modern “progressive” dispensationalists have acknowledged the unity of the prophecy in Psalm 110:
Ephesians 1:20–22 and Colossians 3:1 also see Christ seated at the right hand of God, with the latter passage stressing the fact that all things are presently in subjection to Him.… Peter joins Paul in stressing the present subjugation of authorities and powers to Him [1 Pet. 3:22].… Some dispensationalists have argued that the enthronement of Psalm 110:1 took place at the Ascension, but that the rule of Psalm 110:2 will not take place until a future time.… This interpretation ignores both the literary context of the remark in the Psalms and the way in which the entire text is applied to Jesus in the New Testament.[2]
Scofield’s arbitrary line leads (or allows?) him to misapply the rest of the Psalm to some future, physical, Israeli rulership of the world. He thus, in his point (4), separates Christ’s current enthronement from “the rod of thy strength out of Zion… in the midst of thine enemies.” He takes this material from Psalm 110:2 to apply only after Christ’s physical return to earth and not to a present subjugation of His enemies. This flatly contradicts the apostles (Eph. 1:20–22; 1 Pet. 3:22).
Further, Scofield reduces “Thy people” in Psalm 110:3 to mean only the Jewish people. This contradicts the New Testament, which routinely teaches us that God’s people include both Jew and Gentile (Rom. 2:26–29; Gal. 3:26–29; Eph. 2:13–22), and that these New Testament people are the inheritors of the Priest-King’s chosen, willing people (1 Pet. 2:9–10; Rev. 1:5–6). Scofield awaits a “conversion of the Jews” before Christ can execute his conquest upon earth. Meanwhile, Christ has made “spiritual Jews, ” “kings and priests” out of His people worldwide, and expands His dominion through their faith.
Further following his false division, Scofield lastly sees a future judgment of the Gentile powers which must occur before the “setting up of the kingdom.” What I have said so far has already dispelled these notions; Christ has already taken His throne, established His kingdom, and presently, currently, progressively, judges those “Gentile powers.”
This simple Psalm and the clear interpretation given to it by the apostles must serve as a turning point for modern Christians. We do not await a future kingdom. We do not await a completely future conquest by Christ. Rather, Christ has established His kingdom. He has all power in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). We stand in the midst of the conquest. Some of it awaits completion, but it is initiated and ongoing right now.
An often overlooked and somewhat obscure reference appears in the last verse of Psalm 110. Verse 7 says of our conquering Priest-King, He will drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head. The Geneva Bible comments, “Under this similitude of a captain that is so greedy to destroy his enemies, that he will not scarce drink by the way, he showeth how God will destroy his enemies.” In other words, this warring, conquering King will not leave the path of his battle even to refresh himself. He will drink in the very way, and not leave to go by the way. He will not let up one moment in His mission, nor turn aside until He has accomplished it.
Following this example of our Messiah, Christians should not let anything distract them from the progressing kingdom of God. Our conquering King rules now and subdues more according to His will and power daily. We should not let false divisions and interpretations of Scripture distract us from His way; so many have left the way in order to drink from the brooks of Scofield and his followers. We must return to the battle as Christ has enjoined it, as the apostles understood it, and as the people of God have progressively expanded so far.
Endnotes[1] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), 645–5n1.
[2] Craig Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (BridgePoint, 1993), 178, 312n7.
Source: www.feedcat.net
kadoshaarp | kadoshaarp | My Bookmarks | Mister Wong Feed
kadoshaarp | kadoshaarp | My Bookmarks | Mister Wong
Source: www.feedage.com
Reasons To Improve Your Poor Posture
How often do we think of our posture as an overall body workout? Probably not at all, but it is essential to supporting structures of the body from being injured. Progressive deformities are also prevented by paying attention to your posture. Correct posture is less stress and tension on the joints and some muscles [...]
Source: feedproxy.google.com
Sonia Sotomayor: Measured by the Word of God and Found Wanting
By Herbet W. Titus, J.D.
On May 11, 2009, President Barack Obama nominated court of appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. In support of this nomination, the President assured the American people that Judge Sotomayor was a deserving and worthy nominee. Not only would she be an able justice, the President intoned, she would be impartial, and she would have “empathy.” Thus, the President proclaimed that, with the nomination of Judge Sotoamayor, he had fulfilled one of his campaign promises, the one that he made to Planned Parenthood in 2007, that his judicial appointees would have “the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a teen age mom; the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.”�
Within days after this announcement, the President’s glowing endorsement became tarnished by the nominee’s own words. Delivering the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Judge Sotomayor asserted her “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This statement not only generated a crescendo of voices accusing Judge Sotomayor of “racism, ” but a deep and abiding concern that Judge Sotomayor did not have the judicial temperament that would enable her to judge impartially.
Indeed, in the week before the President’s public announcement of his choice to replace retiring Associate Justice David Souter, Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic raised questions about Judge Sotomayor’s “judicial temperament, ” citing the testimony of various lawyers who found her to be—“a terror on the bench, ” “overly aggressive—not very judicial, ” “behaves in an out of control manner ... makes inappropriate outbursts, ” “nasty to lawyers, ” and “a bully on the bench.”
In Deuteronomy chapter 1, we learn that God instructed Moses to “take you wise men, and understanding” and appoint them “judges, ” charging them to “judge righteously” without “respect of persons in judgment ... hear[ing] the small as well as the great, ... not ... afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s.” (Deut. 1:13, 16–17). Earlier in Leviticus, we learn that God expected judges to “do no unrighteousness in judgment, ” neither “respect[ing] the poor, nor honor[ing] the person of the mighty.” (Lev. 19:15).
Tracking this law of Moses, a person appointed to exercise the judicial power vested by Article III of the United States Constitution, is required to take not just one, but two oaths.
First, he must swear or affirm that “I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ... under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Second he must swear or affirm that “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
In the short time that the American people have had to appraise whether Judge Sotomayor would be true to these oaths, it is becoming increasingly apparent that even her supporters—from the President on down—have backpedaled. In an attempt to soften her statement that a “Latina woman” judge would be superior to a “white male” jurist, President Obama said that “I am sure that she would have restated it.” Others have chimed in, including the President’s press secretary who dismissed the matter as just a mistake in the choice of words.
But, if one takes a closer look, Judge Sotomayor’s self-identification as a “Latina judge” reveals a person who is definitely not qualified to be elevated to the nation’s highest court. Indeed, a closer look reveals that she should be removed from the court of appeals on which she currently sits.
Sotomayor v. Solomon
According to Deuteronomy, the first and foremost qualification for the office of a judge, is that the person be “wise and understanding.” (Deut. 1:13). In her 2001 speech at the Berkeley law school, Judge Sotomayor stated unequivocally that “there can never be a universal definition of wise.” Hence, Judge Sotomayor expressed her conviction that judges have no choice but to draw upon their life’s experiences to resolve disputes between parties in cases and appeals brought to them. Further, she asserted the “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
According to the book of Proverbs, however, there is a universal wisdom, established before the foundation of the world “to lead the way of righteousness, in the midst of the path of judgment.” (Prov. 8:20). And this wisdom is universally available to all (Prov. 1:20–23), the only precondition of which is to fear God and to diligently seek it. (Prov. 2:1–10). And, if one heeds this command, he “will increase learning ... and ... shall attain wise counsels.” (Prov. 1:5). On the other hand, those who “despise wisdom and instruction, ” will become “fools.” (Prov. 1:7). Thus, the Bible summarizes the several chapters in Proverbs contrasting the wise and the foolish with this conclusion: “The fear of the Lord is the instruction of wisdom; and before honor is humility.” (Prov. 15:33).
These Biblical truths can best be illustrated by one of the most popular and acclaimed events in the history of Israel. In recognition of his youth and inexperience, King Solomon humbled himself before God, praying for an “understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad; for who is able to judge this thy so great a people?” 1 Kings 3:9. In response to Solomon’s cry, “God gave [him] wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart ... wiser than all men.” (1 Kings 4:29, 31). Then, Solomon displayed that wisdom when he adjudicated the dispute between the two harlots, ordering the dividing of the baby, knowing full well that the mother’s heart even of a harlot would reveal whose child it was. (see 1 Kings 3:16–28).
In Sotomayor’s world, however, Solomon’s “wise judgment” could only be explained as sheer luck.� After all, King Solomon was not only not a woman—much less a harlot—but had grown up in luxury, a favored son of King David—born with a “silver spoon” in his mouth.� How, then, could Solomon have known that a mother’s love would triumph over a harlot’s spirit?� His life’s experience was surely that of a “white male” and, according to Judge Sotomayor, totally unable to administer justice in a dispute between two fallen women—unless perchance the harlots had been represented by women lawyers sympathetic to civilization’s “oldest profession.” After all, as Judge Sotomayor would have us believe, the ruling by nine white men on the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that racially segregated schools violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws was made possible only because the children’s advocates were persons of color.
Judge Sotomayor proposes that for more consistent and reliable rulings in favor of minority groups the bench should be populated by “statistically significant numbers” of women, and people of color. Presumably, Judge Sotomayor believes that a judiciary more representative of such demographics will by a combination of their “rich life experiences” more often than not reach better conclusions than a bench over represented by “white males.” While this may have an appearance of wisdom, “the end thereof [would be] the death” of equal protection of the laws. (See Proverbs 14:12). For true wisdom does not come from a multitude of diverse voices, but only from God above. (James 3:13–18).
Sotomayor v. Moses
Judge Sotomayor agrees with her fellow Yale Law School classmate, Professor Martha Minow of the Harvard Law School, that “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging.” Judge Sotomayor goes on to elaborate:
I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances ... but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.
And Judge Sotomayor finds this color and sex-conscious approach to law and judging should be welcomed, not tempered, much less subordinated, to the rule of law:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.... I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from our experience and heritage but attempt ... continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
In chapter 18 of the book of Exodus, we are given quite the opposite description of the judicial role, as explained by Moses to his father-in-law, Jethro:
What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou thyself alone and all the people stand by thee from morning into even? And Moses said unto his father-in-law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God; When they have a matter they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God and his laws. [Exodus 18:14–16.]
First, note that the people on both sides of the dispute voluntarily brought their case to Moses. No one was coerced. And Moses was not assigned at random to the case. Both sides knew that they would get Moses as their judge. Why did they come? Because Moses shared their life’s experiences? To the contrary, Moses had been raised in Pharoah’s house. He had not suffered enslavement, as they had, but had lived his first forty years in luxury. (See Exodus 2:1–10). Furthermore, while the Israelis were making bricks out of straw, Moses lived on the backside of the desert herding sheep. (See Exodus 3:1). And Moses had even married a foreign woman. (See Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1).
Surely, there were others more qualified than Moses to “feel their pain.” But the people, who had previously rejected Moses as their judge (see Exodus 1:14) now embraced him. Why? They knew that Moses would judge impartially, that he would “not respect persons in judgment, but [would] hear the small as well as the great.” (See Deuteronomy 1:17). Unlike Judge Sotomayor, Moses did not “aspire” to be impartial; he was impartial, because God commanded it. (See Leviticus 19:15). Unlike Judge Sotomayor, Moses had no choice to behave otherwise. (See Deuteronomy 16:18–20). Neither sympathy, nor opinion, nor prejudice could ever be a touchstone upon which Moses would decide a case.
Second, note that Moses based his decisions on “the statutes of God, and his laws, ” not as Judge Sotomayor who would base her decisions on her “perspective” of the law. No. The people did not come to Moses to get his “perspective” on the matter in dispute. They came to get an authoritative resolution, one that would put the contending parties at rest, not leave them wondering that, if they had chosen someone else, they might have gotten a better deal. Judge Sotomayor, however, can offer nothing more than her “perspective, ” because she does not believe in the pre-existence of a set of rules by which judges are obliged to make their decisions. Rather, she believes that judges make up their own rules either on the basis of their “experiences, ” or on the basis of “inherent physiological or cultural differences.”
In contrast, Moses knew that God, mankind’s creator, had imposed upon His creation a set of rules which bound equally all mankind, male and female, and of every nationality. And it was the judge’s job simply to “make the parties know the statutes of God, and his laws.” Moses put this “common law” system in place even before God had revealed in writing the foundational principles of those laws. After all, not only had Moses been engaged in dispute resolution, but he had appointed others to do likewise, even before God handed down the Ten Commandments. (See Exodus 18:15–16, 19–26). None of is remotely possible in Judge Sotomayor’s world, divided as it is by the “inherent” differences between men and women, and “whites” and “people of color.” According to Sotomayor, there can be no “neutral” principles of law, because there is no legal ground common to both sexes and to all nations. The Bible record is to the contrary. (See Psalm 19; Romans 1:18–20; Galatians 3:28).�
Sotomayor v. Deborah
In the book of Judges, we are introduced to Deborah, “a prophetess [who] judged Israel” during one of the numerous times of oppression suffered during the period between Joshua and Samuel. (See Judges 4:4). As had been the case with Israel’s judges from Moses to Ehud, Deborah’s immediate predecessor—and as would be the case with those judges from Deborah’s successor, Gideon to Samuel and beyond—“the children of Israel came up to [Deborah] for judgment.” (Judges 4:5). Clearly, the people did not change their practice of seeking resolution of their disputes just because of Deborah’s sex or her tribal identity. Nor did they expect to be judged by any “sex-based” or “tribal-oriented” standard. Rather, the rule of law that prevailed during Deborah’s judgeship was the same rule that had been applied by Moses and would be applied by all of the judges thereafter. Thus, when Barak was summoned to appear before Deborah, the rule that only males would go to war (Deut. 20:1–9) was not changed, even though Deborah relented to Barak’s plea and accompanied him to battle. (Judges 4:6–9).
According to Judge Sotomayor, however, the rules do change, and such change is based upon the sexual orientation and ethnic background of the judge: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Would Judge Sotomayor change the law to accommodate a plea from her “Barak, ” President Barack Obama, to accommodate his weakness? Why not? After all, Judge Sotomayor believes that a judge’s life “experiences” is what really counts in the judicial process—that, in reality, law is a reflection of the personal characteristics of those applying it.
If so, then why should we believe Judge Sotomayor when she tells us that her “gender” and her “Latina heritage” are the two most prominent determinants that shape her judicial opinions. She is not just a woman, but she is a divorcee and childless. And she is not just a self-described “Latina, ” but she is a “Newyorkrican, ” that is a “born and bred New Yorker of Puerto-Rican born parents who came to the states during World War II.” And she is a diabetic, and has been since childhood, and was raised by a single mother and whose father died when she was young. If law is nothing more than a judge’s life’s experiences, then shouldn’t Judge Sotomayor open the entire book of her life, including her failed marriage, to Senate scrutiny? How else would a Senator know how to vote on her confirmation?
As for Deborah, we are told only that she was the “wife of Lapidoth” and that she “dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim.” (See Judges 4:4–5.) Why so short a biography? Because in raising up persons to judge Israel (Judges 2:16), God no doubt adhered to the Mosaic standard revealed in Exodus 18:21: “thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.” That standard did not change just because Deborah was a married woman to a man who was of the tribe of Ephraim.
Sotomayor v. The Bible
How would Judge Sotomayor measure up to the four Exodus standards? In order to be “able” to judge:�
The Bible teaches:
?�� A judge must be “wise and understanding.” (Deut. 1:13).
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “There can never be a universal definition of wise ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
The Bible teaches:
?�� One must “judge righteously, ” not by “appearances, ” but by “just judgment.” (Deut.1:16 and 16:18).
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “‘[T]o judge is an exercise of power’ and because there is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging. I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.”
The Bible teaches:
?�� One must “fear God, ” not be “afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s.” (Deut. 1:17).
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
The Bible teaches:
?�� One must be a “man of truth, ” not a “respect[er] of persons” doing no “unrighteousness in judgment.” Leviticus 19:15.
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”
The Bible teaches:
?�� One must “hate covetousness, ” for the “tak[ing] [of] a gift ... doth blind the eyes of the wise; and pervert the words of the righteous.” Deuteronomy 16:19.
Sotomayor believes:
?�� “We ... must continue ... to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have a statistically significant numbers to measure the difference we will and are making.”
Clearly, Judge Sotomayor’s view of herself as a judge, when measured by the Word of God, is found wanting.
Source: www.feedcat.net
The Power and Authority of Words
By Eric Rauch
In the New Testament, the Greek word for "authority" is sometimes translated as "power." Even though there is a separate Greek word for power, the concepts of power and authority are so intimately connected in the Western mind, that modern translators often view them as synonyms. But translations aside, there is a biblical distinction that should be made between authority and power.
We discussed previously the relationship between author and authority, where an author has "authority" because he is the originator, the creator. Authority, in the biblical sense, is usually referring to the legitimacy of the individual or individuals. For example, when Jesus finished his Sermon on the Mount, Matthew records that "the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes" (Matthew 7:28-29). In other words, the crowds recognized something different in the words of Jesus that was lacking in the words of their own teachers. The scribes had the "power" of the Scriptures, but lacked the ability—the legitimacy—to speak them with any authority. When Jesus, the author and finisher of faith (Hebrews 12:2) spoke however, he spoke with authority because he was the author; he had legitimate claim to the power AND authority of the Scriptures.
You've heard it said that "knowledge is power." And while this is true, we must not forget that knowledge exists only in words. In reality, words are the real power of the created world. Meaning is infused into words by an authority. French artist Marcel Duchamp despised language because he understood that it pointed to a transcendent Message-sender. Duchamp set out to create his own language, free of any meaning and authority. When he realized that by creating his own language, Duchamp had merely replaced God with himself, he destroyed his work. Language—any language—is authoritarian by its very nature. The creator of the language must give meaning to his "words" in order to communicate. Without meaning, communicating is impossible. Duchamp learned the lesson of the Tower of Babel too late. Words have power because they come from an authority.
This is why one of the first actions of any regime seeking to subvert the current authority will always involve language. Redefining words, creating new ones, controlling the media, and restricting access to alternate viewpoints must take place before any coup can be successful. In "The Principles of Newspeak, " an appendix to George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, we are told:
Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism...The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression� to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever. [1]
Orwell understood the power of words. Control the language; control the people. Notice that Orwell understood that even Newspeak was limited in that it was only effective "at least so far as thought is dependent on words." Even though this is theoretically true, how many of us actually think in anything other than words. We primarily think and reason conceptually, not pictorially.
Words are important to God as well. He gave us his word—the Bible—and he gave the Word—Jesus Christ. He made words the focus of two of his ten commandments: the third and the ninth. In the third commandment, we are told to not take his name in vain, referring primarily to vows and oaths. In the ninth, we are told to not bear false witness against our neighbor, a reference to being truthful and providing trustworthy testimony. God expects his people to be truthful, to be without reproach in what we say and do. This idea is repeated over and over throughout the entire Bible and when we get to the New Testament we find an interesting application of this concept.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes an observation regarding the third commandment. In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus says: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes, ’ and your ‘No, ’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." Paul and James both repeat similar admonitions in their letters (2 Corinthians 1:17-20; James 5:12). Commentaries on these passages refer to the historical tradition of the first century Jews to make any and all sorts of vows and oaths against sacred objects, in order to give their promises validity (i.e. authority). Stated another way, they had gotten to the point where their words were no longer trustworthy; their words no longer carried any power because their authority of being truthful people—ones that obeyed God's third and ninth commandments—had been corrupted. There is no honor among thieves or liars...
We will continue this study on Wednesday, May 27.
Endnote[1]� George Orwell, 1984 (New York: Signet Classics, 1983 [1949]), 246
Source: www.feedcat.net
The 10th Amendment and Ratification of the Constitution
By Dr. Archie P. Jones
Humanly speaking, the authority of our Constitution is not based on the authority of the people of the nation or the Union but upon the authority of the people of the respective states. Sen. Daniel Webster to the contrary not withstanding, the Constitution’s Preamble’s opening phrase, “We the people of the United States, ” did not mean, and was not intended to mean, the people of the United States as a united whole—as Federalist advocates of ratification of the Constitution had to admit again and again during the various states’ debates on ratification of the Constitution.
The evidence on this is quite clear despite the fact that it is seldom taught in our schools and colleges. Our War for Independence was fought to achieve the independence of the thirteen colonies—not of “a new nation, ” as Lincoln, who sought to re-found our nation based on a particular reading of the Declaration, claimed. Our Declaration of Independence manifestly proclaimed the independence not of “a new nation” but of those thirteen “free and independent” states. The Articles of Confederation, our first constitution, was framed by representatives of those thirteen states then ratified by the legislatures of those same states. The Articles united those states under a national legislature but in a confederation which, by definition and design left each state free to govern itself. Our Constitution was framed by representatives of those thirteen independent states—who voted as states, not as individual representatives, nor as a national majority constituted of the majority of the representatives present in the Philadelphia Convention. The finished Constitution was sent not to an election of the people of the whole United States but to the individual states for ratification. Without being ratified, of course, the Constitution could not have had the authority to function as law, much less as our fundamental law.
The Constitution was ratified by those states as states. In each state a special session of the state’s legislature or a special state ratification convention with delegates chosen by the people the various districts of the state discussed and debated the document and its various provisions, voted, and determined whether or not to ratify the Constitution. As Madison said in Federalist No. 39, “ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” And, “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”
So our Constitution was framed by representatives of the states who voted as states, and was ratified by representative bodies chosen by the people of each state. The people of the nation, as such, had no part in either of these legal activities.
The process of ratification by the states made each state which ratified the Constitution the party to a covenant or compact. That compact was a covenant among the respective states and their peoples, not between the peoples of the several states tand the people of the whole nation.
In that compact the people of the several states delegated a small part of the authority of their respective states to the new central government established by the Constitution. In that compact the people of the states also forbade the states to exercise certain specific powers. But that was all. They neither delegated more authority and powers to the central government nor denied their states the authority to exercise additional powers.
The fundamental law established by the Constitution did not obliterate authority of the civil governments of the states which formed the Union. Nor did the Constitution give the central/national government established by that document the authority to meddle with the corporate identities of the peoples of the states. The Constitution was plainly not intended to do either. As Madison said in Federalist No. 39, although the operation of the powers which the central government does have is national, the extent of its powers are not. In the extent of its powers “the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”
The states’ documents stating their ratification of the Constitution provide powerful testimony to their intention to keep the central government within its constitutional bounds, retain their own non-delegated powers, and reserve their right to defend their people’s inherited ways and liberty against central government injustice or tyranny. At least three of the states—Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island—in their ratification documents made it clear that they had the right to take back the powers which they had delegated to the central government whenever those powers were perverted by the central government or whenever it should become “necessary to their happiness.” Those states ratification documents also guarded against self-interested misconstruction of the Constitution’s wording to imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not stated in the Constitution.
These states’ intention was to protect the reserved powers of the states—each state’s authority to govern itself—as much as to limit the powers of the central government. New York’s ratification instrument stated it plainly: “that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same…”
This, of course, is the essential idea of the Tenth Amendment: protection of the powers which the states had neither delegated to the national government nor forbidden to themselves in the Constitution; prevention of both the usurpation of these powers by the central government and the denial of these powers to the states by the central government. The power of this concept explains why what became the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution. The people of the states whose representatives framed and ratified the Constitution insisted that the authority of their states to govern their own internal affairs, and the powers necessary to accomplish that end, remain in the hands of their respective state governments.
Thus the ratification of the Constitution clarifies both the principles of what became our Tenth Amendment and the intensity with which Americans embraced the principles of that great amendment.
Source: www.feedcat.net
Post a Comment